L 58/18 Official Journal of the European Union 3.3.2011 COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 206/2011 of 28 February 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, (4 In September 2007, by Regulation (EC) No Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, duty imposed on this company by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006. 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 (5)  In January 2009, by Regulation (EC) No 15/2009 (%), the basic Regulation), and in particular Articles 15(1), 19(1) and 22(1) thereof, Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (the Commission) after consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: 1. Previous investigation and existing countervailing In December 1999, A. PROCEDURE measures 1124/2007 (°), the Council, following a partial interim review concerning the subsidisation of another Indian PET film producer, amended the definitive countervailing Council, following a partial interim review initiated by the Commission on its own initiative concerning the subsidisation of five (EC) No 1292/2007 (). Indian PET film producers, amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on these companies by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 and the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Regulation (6) In June 2010, by implementing Regulation (EU) No 579/2010 (%), the Council, following a partial interim review concerning the subsidisation of an Indian PET film producer, amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on this company by Regulation (EC) 367/2006. by Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999 (%), the Council imposed a definitive counter- vailing duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film (the product concerned) currently falling within CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and ex 3920 62 90, originating in India. The measures took the form of an ad valorem countervailing duty, ranging between 3,8 % and 19,1 % imposed on imports from individually named exporters, with a residual duty rate of 19,1 % imposed on imports of the product concerned from all other companies. The investigation period of the original (8) It should be noted that Vacmet India Limited is subject to investigation was 1 October 1997 to 30 September 1998. In March 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006 (?) (Regulation (EC) No 367/2006), the Council, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of the basic o ) Regulation, maintained the definitive countervailing (9 On 7 August 2009, the Commission received a request duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999 on imports of PET film originating in India. The review investigation  period  was 30 September 2004. In August 2006, by Regulation (EC) No 1288/2006 (¥), the Council, following an interim review concerning the subsidisation of an Indian PET film producer, amended the definitive countervailing duty imposed on this 1 October 2003 to 2. Existing anti-dumping measures 3. Initiation of a partial interim review (7) It should be noted that Vacmet India Limited is currently subject to a countervailing duty of 19,1 % on the basis of Regulation (EC) 367/2006. a residual anti-dumping duty of 17,3 % on the basis of Regulation (EC) 1292/2007. for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation. The request, limited in scope to the examination of subsidisation, was lodged by Vacmet India Limited, an exporting producer from India (the applicant). In its request, the applicant claimed that the circumstances on the basis of which measures were company by Regulation (EC) No 367/2006. disation. L L L L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93. 316, 10.12.1999, p. 1. 68, 8.3.20006, p. 15. 236, 31.8.20006, p. 1. 5 6 () OJ L 255, 29.9.2007, p. 1. ) o] () O] ¢ o) 6, 10.1.2009, p. 1. 288, 6.11.2007, p. 1. 168, 2.7.2010, p. 1. | il ol ol ol 8 imposed have changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature. The applicant provided prima facie evidence that the continued imposition of the measure at its current level is no longer necessary to offset subsi-