25. 5. 95 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 118/1 (Acts whose publication is obligatory) COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1168/95 of 22 May 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) No 830/92 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyester yarns (man-made staple fibres) with regard to ‘those originating in Indonesia : 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 subsi- dized 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 (%), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyester yarns falling within CN codes 5509 21 10, 5509 21 90, 5509 2210, 5509 22 90, 5509 5100 and 5509 5300, and originating in Indonesia and several other countries, with the exception of goods produced and sold for export to the Community by one Indonesian producer for which the anti-dumping duty does not apply. B. REVIEW ()  Six Indonesian companies, PT Bitratex Industrial Corp, PT Elegant Textile Industry, PT Gokak Indonesia, PT Indorama Synthetics, PT Lotus Indah Textile Industries, PT Sunrise Bumi Textiles claimed that their export ex-works price was higher than their domestic ex-works price, that their (") 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. domestic selling prices were profitable, and that in consequence they were no longer dumping. (3) Two other Indonesian companies, PT Kanindo Success Textile Industries and PT Sulindafin Permai Spinning Mills (PT Sulindamills) claimed that they did not export the products concerned during the period covered by the previous investi- gation and only started doing so after that period and that they were not related to any company subject to the previous investigation. Therefore, they requested that a newcomer review be opened. (4  Those companies provided evidence of the facts they alleged, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a review in accordance with the provisions of Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88. By a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities(®), the Commission, after consultation within the Advisory Committee, initiated a review of Regulation (EEC) No 830/92 with regard to the eight companies cited above and commenced its investigation. The review was limited to an examination of changed circumstances in dumping. It should be noted that the exports of these compa- nies represent 35 % of total exports of mixed yarn to the European Community by Indonesian expor- ters. (5) The Commission sent questionnaires to the parties concerned and gave them the opportunity to make their views known. The Commission sought and verified all information it considered necessary and inspected the information submitted in the premises of all the companies abovementioned. The Commission also received information from the complainant in the original investigation. (6)  The investigation covered the period 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1993 (investigation period). () OJ No C 74, 12. 3. 1994, p. 3.