L 175/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 14.7.2000 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1522/2000 of 10 July 2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyester origin- ating in Australia, Indonesia and Thailand and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (') and in particular Article 9 thereof, Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: 1. PROCEDURE 1.1. Provisional measures and definitive counter- vailing duties (1) By Commission Regulation (EC) No 124/2000 (3 (the ‘provisional duty Regulation’) provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed on imports into the Community of polyester staple fibres (PSF) falling within CN code 5503 20 00 and originating in Australia, Indonesia and Thailand. (2)  As a result of a parallel anti-subsidy investigation, provi- sional countervailing duties were imposed under Commission Regulation (EC) No 123/2000 () on imports into the Community of PSF originating in Australia, and Taiwan. (3)  Regarding the abovementioned anti-subsidy invest- igation, by Council Regulation (EC) No 978/2000 (%) definitive countervailing duties on imports originating in Australia, Taiwan and Indonesia were adopted. 1.2. Subsequent procedure (4)  Following the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties, several parties submitted comments in writing. In accordance with the provisions of Article 6(5) of Regula- tion (EC) No 384/96 (the ‘basic Regulation’), the parties which so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard. Parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty and the definitive collection, at the level of this duty, of amounts secured by way of provisional duty. (") OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation ] (EC) No 905/98 (O] L 128, 30.4.1998, p. 18). () OJ L 16, 21.1.2000, p. 3. () O] L 16, 21.1.2000, p. 30. ( O] L 113, 12.5.2000, p. 1. (10) They were also granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to this disclosure. The oral and written comments submitted within the deadlines set for that purpose by the interested parties were considered and, where deemed appropriate, taken into account for the definitive findings. 1.3. Non-cooperation Following the imposition of provisional measures, one non-cooperating  Indonesian  exporting  producer requested the Commission to reconsider its status as non-cooperator. The claim was that, despite the difficul- ties caused by the deadlines, this company replied to the Commission questionnaire and that this was an indica- tion of its intention to cooperate. As explained in recital 18 of the provisional duty Regu- lation, this exporting producer failed to provide a completed response to the questionnaire within the deadline, which was extended several times in order to enable the company to submit a meaningful reply. The provisional determination of non-cooperation should therefore be confirmed. 2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT The product concerned is synthetic staple fibres of poly- esters, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, which is currently classifiable under CN code 5503 20 00. It is commonly referred to as polyester staple fibres or PSF. The Royal Thai Government (RTG’), the Government of Indonesia (‘GOI'), certain exporting producers and a users' association (‘Eurofibrefill’) claimed that the Notice of Initiation of the present proceeding did not cover PSF types for non-spinning applications, and consequently these PSF types should have been excluded from the proceeding. It was also argued that, in any event, a differentiation should be made between PSF types used for spinning applications (also called woven, or ‘PSFS’) and PSF used for non-spinning applications (also called non-woven, fibrefill or ‘PSENS’) because of different physical, tech- nical and chemical characteristics and different use. Furthermore, it was alleged that inter-changeability, if any, between PSFS and PSFNS was very limited and concerned only certain types of fibres originally intended for PSFS which may be used as PSENS. Actually, some interested parties indicated that the differentiation