L 25410 Official Journal of the European Union 29.9.2010 COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 857/2010 of 27 September 2010 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates 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 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (the ‘basic Regulation’) (), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof, Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (‘the Commission’) after consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: 1. PROCEDURE 1.1. Provisional measures (1) The Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 473/2010 (3 (the provisional Regulation’), imposed a provisional countervailing duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (‘the countries concerned). (2)  The proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 20 July 2009 by the Polyethylene Tereph- thalate Committee of Plastics Europe (‘the complainant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of certain polyethylene terephthalate. (3)  As set out in recital (15) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (‘the investi- gation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the IP (‘period considered’). (4)  In the parallel anti-dumping proceeding, the Commission by Regulation (EU) No 472/2010 (), imposed a provi- sional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain poly- ethylene terephthalate originating in Iran and the United Arab Emirates. 1.2. Subsequent procedure (5)  Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional countervailing measures (‘provisional disclosure), several interested parties made written 0] L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93. () O] L 134, 1.6.2010, p. 25. 0] L 134, 1.6.2010, p. 4. (6) (10) submissions making their views known on the provi- sional findings. The parties who so requested were also granted the opportunity to be heard. The Commission continued to seek and wverify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties following the provisional disclosure were considered and, where appropriate, the provisional findings were modified accordingly. All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty (final disclosure’). They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure. The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and, where appro- priate, the findings were modified accordingly. 1.3. Parties concerned by the proceeding Some interested parties claimed that the sample of EU producers was not representative and inconsistent and that therefore the injury analysis was deficient. In particular, it was claimed that sampling was not necessary since the number of producers was not large. In addition, it was claimed that by ‘artificially’ splitting company groups into individual legal entities, the sample would not contain some of the market leaders (Artenius, M&G Polimeri) and that the methodology for the selection of the sample is inconsistent since the sample also included two groups of companies. It was also claimed that the sample was not representative since it did not contain any producer that is selling to a related PET processor in sufficient quantities. As a result, the institutions allegedly could not assess the real supply capability of the Union industry and did not take into account the Union industry’s conflict of interest. Moreover, as one company did not provide all necessary information and was excluded from the sample, the representativity allegedly dropped to 28 % of EU production. The same parties claimed that the selected sample was not statistically valid. With regard to the argument that sampling was not necessary since the number of producers was not large, it is reiterated that in the sampling exercise 14 Union