L 136/12 Official Journal of the European Union 23.5.2013 DECISIONS COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 21 May 2013 rejecting the proposal for a Council implementing regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and terminating the expiry review proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Indonesia and Malaysia, in so far as the proposal would impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand (2013/226/EU) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community ('), and in particular Articles 9(4) and 11(2) thereof, Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission, after consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: INTRODUCTION Anti-dumping measures against imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand have been in force since 2000, having been renewed in 2007. In parallel, counter- vailing measures on PET from India have been in place since 2000, and trade defence measures are also in place on imports from China, Iran, Pakistan and UAE. The Expiry Review of these anti-dumping measures was initiated on 24 February 2012. An Expiry Review of the countervailing measures against imports of PET from India was also initiated on 24 February 2012. The Council has accepted the Commission’s proposal to maintain these countervailing measures. According to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (the Basic anti-dumping Regulation), measures will expire after a period unless expiry of a () O] L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. measure would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Article 11(2) also says that the likelihood of recurrence may be indicated by evidence: (a) of continued dumping and injury; or (b) that the removal of injury is partly or solely due to the existence of measures; or (o) that the circumstances of the exporters, or market conditions, are such that they would indicate the likelihood of further injurious dumping. Finally, Article 11(2) says that conclusions are to be reached with due account taken of all relevant and duly documented evidence presented in relation to the question as to whether the expiry of measures would be likely, or unlikely, to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. The Council agrees that there is no likelihood that Indonesian or Malaysian exporting producers will resume exporting injurious quantities at dumped prices to the Union market in the short or medium term should measures be repealed. However, the Council view is that the case has not been made that the removal of anti-dumping measures against India, Taiwan and Thailand would be likely to lead to continuation or resumption of injurious dumping. It further concludes that the reimposition of measures would clearly be against the overall Union interest. The Council is of the opinion that 13 years has in this instance been enough to allow European industry to adapt to the global competition and recover substantially. In addition, the main export markets for PET are growing and the global demand for PET-packaged products is likely to expand further as the world economy recovers.