The investigation of subsidy and injury covered the period from 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 (`investigation period` or `IP` ).

The investigation of subsidy and injury covered the period from 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 ("investigation period" or "IP").

(iii) a description of the subsidy practice or practices to be investigated;

18.4 If an undertaking is accepted, the investigation of subsidization and injury shall nevertheless be completed if the exporting Member so desires or the importing Member so decides.

11.9 An application under paragraph 1 shall be rejected and an investigation shall be terminated promptly as soon as the authorities concerned are satisfied that there is not sufficient evidence of either subsidization or of injury to justify proceeding with the case.

11.1 Except as provided in paragraph 6, an investigation to determine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged subsidy shall be initiated upon a written application by or on behalf of the domestic industry.

11.7 The evidence of both subsidy and injury shall be considered simultaneously (a) in the decision whether or not to initiate an investigation and (b) thereafter, during the course of the investigation, starting on a date not later than the earliest date on which in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement provisional measures may be applied.

(i) exempt from the imposition of countervailing duties unless a determination of injury or threat thereof is made in accordance with Article VI of GATT 1994 and Part V of the Subsidies Agreement, and due restraint shall be shown in initiating any countervailing duty investigations;

12.10 The authorities shall provide opportunities for industrial users of the product under investigation, and for representative consumer organizations in cases where the product is commonly sold at the retail level, to provide information which is relevant to the investigation regarding subsidization, injury and causality.

(i) subject to countervailing duties only upon a determination of injury or threat thereof based on volume, effect on prices, or consequent impact in accordance with Article VI of GATT 1994 and Part V of the Subsidies Agreement, and due restraint shall be shown in initiating any countervailing duty investigations; and

11.6 If, in special circumstances, the authorities concerned decide to initiate an investigation without having received a written application by or on behalf of a domestic industry for the initiation of such investigation, they shall proceed only if they have sufficient evidence of the existence of a subsidy, injury and causal link, as described in paragraph 2, to justify the initiation of an investigation.

15.3 Where imports of a product from more than one country are simultaneously subject to countervailing duty investigations, the investigating authorities may cumulatively assess the effects of such imports only if they determine that (a) the amount of subsidization established in relation to the imports from each country is more than de minimis as defined in paragraph 9 of Article 11 and the volume of imports from each country is not negligible and (b) a cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports is appropriate in light of the conditions of competition between the imported products and the conditions of competition between the imported products and the like domestic product.

The Commission examined the same subsidy schemes that were analysed in the original investigation.

The investigation of subsidisation covered the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 March 2003 (investigation period or IP).

Additionally, the investigation did not reveal that the company benefited from any other than the above subsidy schemes.

In the parallel investigation referred to in recital 4, the subsidies found for the exporting producer concerned are not export subsidies and are therefore considered not to have affected the export price and the corresponding dumping margin.

The investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the period from 1 October 2001 to 30 September 2002 (investigation period or IP).

Those companies selected in the sample which fully cooperated during the investigation were attributed their own subsidy margin and individual duty rate.

In the parallel anti-subsidy investigation, it was established that subsidised imports originating in India caused material injury to the Community industry.

Finally, the request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the imported PET film still benefits from the subsidies as established in the original investigation.

In the parallel anti-subsidy investigation, it was established that subsidised imports originating in India contributed to the injury suffered by the Community industry.

As no request for a review of the findings on injury was made in the request for the investigation, the review was limited to subsidies granted to Indo Pet.

In addition, Article 8(6) of the basic Regulation specifies that the examination shall entail a demonstration that the volume and/or price levels of the subsidised imports are responsible for the impact on the Community industry.

It also examined whether the new exporter had used any subsidy schemes that were alleged to be granted in the original complaint but not found to have been used during the original investigation period.

An investigation or proceeding should be terminated whenever there is no need to impose measures, for example if the amount of subsidisation, the degree of unfair pricing or the injury is negligible;

It was finally examined whether the new exporters had made use of any subsidy schemes that were established after the end of the original investigation period, or had received ad hoc subsidies after this date.

Following the initiation of the proceedings, the Commission shall commence an investigation which shall cover both subsidisation or unfair pricing practices of air services supplied by non-Community carriers on certain routes, and injury.

In this regard, it is noted that Article 5 of the basic Regulation provides that the amount of countervailable subsidies should be calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient which is found to exist during the IP for subsidisation.

Taking account of the definitive findings relating to the various schemes as set out above, the amount of countervailable subsidy for the investigating exporting producer is as follows:

The investigation revealed that the two related companies exported products produced by Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. The related companies should therefore be subject to the subsidy margin established for Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

The benefit obtained by a company in the case of tax exemptions and tax reductions is calculated by reference to the amount of tax that would have been payable by the recipient company during the investigation period, had it not been able to benefit from a subsidy scheme.

The investigation which led to the undertaking offered by the Company was concluded by (i) a final determination as to subsidisation and injury by Regulation (EC) No 1338/2002 and (ii) a final determination as to dumping and injury by Regulation (EC) No 1339/2002.

The notice of initiation of the proceedings shall announce the initiation of an investigation, indicate the scope of the investigation, the air services on the routes concerned, the countries whose governments allegedly granted the subsidies or license the air carriers allegedly engaged in unfair pricing practices and the period within which interested parties may make themselves known, present their views in writing and submit information, if such views are to be taken into account during the investigation;

An investigation under this Regulation shall be initiated upon the lodging of a written complaint on behalf of the Community industry by any natural or legal person or any association, or on the Commission's own initiative, if there is sufficient evidence of the existence of countervailable subsidies (including, if possible, of their amount) or unfair pricing practices within the meaning of this Regulation, injury and a causal link between the allegedly subsidised or unfairly priced air services and the alleged injury.

In case of breach or withdrawal of undertakings by any party, a definitive measure shall be imposed in accordance with Article 12, on the basis of the facts established within the context of the investigation which led to the undertaking, provided that the investigation was concluded with a final determination as to subsidisation and that the non-Community air carrier concerned, or the government granting the subsidy, has been given an opportunity to comment, except in the case of withdrawal of the undertaking by the non-Community air carrier or such government.

Where the countervailing duties imposed are less than the amount of countervailable subsidies found, an interim review may be initiated if the Community producers or any other interested party submit, normally within two years from the entry into force of the measures, sufficient evidence that, after the original investigation period and prior to or following the imposition of measures, export prices have decreased or that there has been no movement, or insufficient movement of resale prices of the imported product in the Community.

One company benefited from this scheme during the investigation period and obtained subsidies of 1,08%.

If the undertakings are accepted, the investigation of subsidization and injury shall normally be completed.

Such investigation shall cover both subsidization and injury, and these shall be investigated simultaneously.

The investigation of subsidisation in India was conducted in accordance Article 27 of the basic Regulation.

However, the decrease in the volume of subsidised imports may be a consequence of the opening of an anti-subsidy investigation.

The Commission examined the same subsidy schemes which were analysed in the original investigation.

The amount of the subsidy is calculated in terms of benefit found to exist in the investigation period (Article 14 ASCM).

Two companies benefited from this scheme during the investigation period and obtained subsidies of 1,31 % and 6,84%.

As in the original investigation, the total value of the subsidy has been allocated over total exports in the investigation period.

Sindia Steels Limited benefited from this scheme during the investigation period and obtained subsidies of 15,5%.

The evidence both of subsidies and of injury shall be considered simultaneously in the decision on whether or not to initiate an investigation.

Two companies benefited from this scheme during the investigation period and obtained subsidies of 0,42 % and 0,40 % respectively.

An investigation may be initiated in order to determine whether or not the alleged subsidies are 'specific' within the meaning of Article 3 (2) and (3).

In summary, six companies have availed themselves of this scheme during the investigation period and obtained subsidies of between 1,42 % and 8,75 %.