1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 1
This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
►B COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)No 2320/97
of 17 November 1997
imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or
non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and theSlovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC)No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in
respect of such imports originating in the Republic of Croatia
(OJ L 322, 25.11.1997, p. 1)
Amended by:
Official Journal
No page date
►M1Council Regulation (EC) No 190/2000 of 24 January 2000 L 23 1 28.1.2000
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 2
▼B
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC)No 2320/97
of 17 November 1997
imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seam-
less pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating inHungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and theSlovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC)No 1189/93 andterminating the proceeding in respect of such imports originating in
the Republic of Croatia
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Havingreg ard to the Treaty establishingthe European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December
1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not membersof the European Community (
1), and in particular Article 9 (4) thereof,
Havingreg ard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after
consultingthe Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A.PROCEDURE
(1)By Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 (2), the Council imposed defin-
itive anti-dumpingduties on imports of certain seamless pipesand tubes, of iron or non-alloy steel, originating in Hungary,Poland and the Republic of Croatia. The rate of the duty was21,7 % for Hungary, 10,8 % for Poland and 17,4 % for theRepublic of Croatia. In addition, the Commission accepted under-takings(
3) offered by the Hungarian, Polish and Croatian expor-
ters.
(2)On 31 August 1996, the Commission announced, by a noticepublished in the Official Journal of the European Communi-ties(
4), the initiation of an interim review of Regulation (EEC)
No 1189/93 in respect of imports of certain seamless pipes andtubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Polandand the Republic of Croatia and commenced an investigationpursuant to Article 11 (3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (herein-after referred to as ‘the basic Regulation').
(3)This interim review investigation was initiated in parallel with aninvestigation opened on the same date(
5) in respect of such
imports originating in Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania andthe Slovak Republic followinga complaint lodg ed by theDefence Committee of the Seamless Steel Tube Industry of theEuropean Union.
(4)By Regulation (EC) No 981/97 (6) (hereinafter referred to as the
‘provisional Regulation'),the Commission imposed a provisionalanti-dumpingduty on imports into the Community of the productin question originating in Russia, the Czech Republic, Romaniaand the Slovak Republic.
(5)Followingthe imposition of the provisional anti-dumpingmeas-ures, certain interested parties submitted comments in writing.
Those parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be
heard by the Commission.
(1) OJ L 56, 6. 3. 1996, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No
2331/96 (OJ L 317, 6. 12. 1996, p. 1.)
(2) OJ L 120, 15. 5. 1993, p. 34.
(3) OJ L 120, 15. 5. 1993, p. 42.
(4) OJ C 253, 31. 8. 1996, p. 25.
(5) OJ C 253, 31. 8. 1996, p. 26.
(6) OJ L 141, 31. 5. 1997, p. 36.
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 3
▼B
The Commission continued to seek and verify all informationdeemed necessary for its definitive findings.
(6)On 22 May 1997, the Association Councils established under theAgreements between the European Communities and theirMember States, of the one part, and the Czech Republic,Romanian and the Slovak Republic, respectively, of the otherpart, were informed by letter of the Commission’s intention toimpose provisional measures.
The Czech, Romanian and Slovak authorities all objected that the
Commission had acted in breach of the Europe Agreement (andin particular Article 34 (2) thereof) by failingto hold consulta-tions before the proceedingwas initiated, immediately after theinitiation, or prior to the imposition of provisional duties.
It should be recalled that, when a complaint is received, the
Commission has to investigate the allegations contained therein.If the Commission is satisfied that the complainant has providedsufficient evidence to warrant an investigation, it is obliged,under the provisions of its own anti-dumpingleg islation, to opena proceeding. Regarding the Community’s legal obligations underthe Europe Agreements, it is considered that these have been metin full. The Agreements state that the Association Councils haveto be informed of any dumpingcase as soon as the authorities ofthe importingcountry have initiated an investig ation. Thisrequirement was met by the Commission.
Furthermore, the Europe Agreements state that if no satisfactory
solution is reached within 30 days of the matter beingreferred toan Association Council, the importingparty may adopt the appro-priate measures. Since no solution was found within the requiredtime, the Commission was entitled to take measures, as appro-priate; this it did on 31 May 1997. The actual decision to imposeprovisional duties was not taken until 21 May, only shortlybefore the statutory deadline expired. Nonetheless, the Commis-sion immediately informed the Association Council and providedit with the data on the basis of which the decision had been made.Consultations, first with the country authorities and then with theexporters/producers themselves were started within a matter ofdays and were pursued throughout the investigation with a viewto reachinga mutually acceptable solution. Therefore, theCommunity has fully complied with the requirements of theEurope Agreements, and in particular with Article 34 (2) and 34(3) (b) thereof.
(7)In the interim review investigation, the Commission officiallyadvised the Hungarian, Polish and Croatian producers/exporters,and the importers known to be concerned, the representatives ofthe exportingcountries and the complainant, and g ave the partiesdirectly concerned the opportunity to make their views known inwritingand to request a hearing . The interested parties who sorequested were granted an opportunity to be heard by theCommission. They also made written submissions, makingknown their views on the findings.
(8)The Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to beconcerned and received replies from the complainingCommunityproducers, from five companies in the Czech Republic, fromseven in Romania, from one in the Slovak Republic, from six inRussia, from one in Hungary, from six in Poland and from one inthe Republic of Croatia. The Commission also received repliesfrom four unrelated importers in the Community, from aCommunity importer related to one Czech company and fromtwo importers related to the Slovak producer, one of which waslocated in the Community and the other in Switzerland.
Verification visits, with regard to both investigations, were
carried out at the followingcompanies:
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 4
▼B
Community producers
— Voest Alpine, Kindberg, Austria,— Vallourec Industries, Boulogne-Billancourt, France,— Benteler AG, Paderborn, Germany,— Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG, Mülheim an der Ruhr,
Germany,
— Dalmine S.p.A., Dalmine, Italy,— Productos Tubulares S.A., Valle de Trapaga, Spain,— Tubos Reunidos S.A., Amurrio, Spain,— Ovako Steel AB Tube Division, Hofors, Sweden,— ESW Röhrenwerke GmbH, Eschweiler, Germany,— Rohrwerk Neue Maxhütte GmbH, Sulzbach-Rosenberg,
Germany.
Importers not related to exporters
— Jannone ARM S.p.A., Naples, Italy,— Geminvest S.R.L., Limbiate, Italy,— Starval, Marly La Ville, France,— Voest Alpine Stahlhandel AG, Linz, Austria.
Exporters and importers/trading companies subject to the
new investigation
Importer related to two Czech producers:
— Topham Eisen und Stahlhandelges.m.b.H., Vienna, Austria.
Importers related to the Slovak producer:
— Pipex International AG, Nidau, Switzerland,— Pipex Italia S.p.A., Milan, Italy (a subsidiary of the above).
Exporters in the Czech Republic
— Vítkovice a.s. and Vítkovice Export a.s., Ostrava,— Nová Hut a.s., Ostrava,— Válcovny trub Dioss and Dioss Trading, Chomutov a.s.,— Ferromet LongProducts Ltd, Prag ue (tradingcompany
related to Nová Hut),
— Incos s.r.o., Prague (unrelated trading company).
Exporters in Romania
— Artrom SA,— Silcotub SA,— Petrotub SA,— Republica SA,— Intertube Ltd., Bucharest (trader related to SC Republica SA),— SC Metalexportimport SA, Bucharest (unrelated exporter/
trader),
— Sota Company, Bucharest (unrelated exporter/trader).
Exporters in the Slovak Republic
— Železiarne Podbrezová a.s., Podbrezová.
Exporters subject to the review investigationExporter in Hungary
— Csepel Tubes Co. Ltd, Budapest.
Exporters in Poland
— Huta Andrzej SA, Zawadzkie,— Huta Batory SA, Chorzów,— Stalexport SA (related trader), Katowice.
Exporter in the Republic ofCroatia
— Zeljezara Sisak, Sisak Steel Pipe Works, Sisak.
In the course of the investigation, the Croatian exporter informed
the Commission that the company had changed its name toZeljezara Sisak — Sisak Tubemills Ltd. The Commissionconcluded that the change in name in no way affected the find-ings established in the investigation.
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 5
▼B
(9)For both investigations, dumping was examined for the period
from 1 September 1995 to 31 August 1996, ‘the investigationperiod'. The examination of injury, and of the likelihood ofcontinuation or recurrence of injury, covered the period fromJanuary 1992 to the end of the investigation period.
(10)All parties concerned were informed of the essential facts andconsiderations on the basis of which it was intended to recom-mend the imposition of definitive measures or the amendment ofexistingdefinitive measures. They were also g ranted a periodwithin which to make representations and/or to offer undertak-ings subsequent to these disclosures.
B.PRODUCT UNDER INVESTIGATION
1.Product concerned
(11)The product subject to both investigations is:
(a) seamless pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel, of a kind used for
oil or gas pipelines, of an external diameter not exceeding406,4 mm;
(b) seamless tubes of circular cross-section, of iron or non-alloy
steel, cold-drawn or cold-rolled, other than precision tubes;and
(c) other tubes of circular cross-section, of iron or non-alloy
steel, other than threaded or threadable, of an external diam-eter not exceeding406,4 mm
currently classifiable under CN codes 7304 10 10, 7304 10 30,
7304 31 99, 7304 39 91 and 7304 39 93.
In line with the position adopted by the Council in Regulation
(EEC) No 1189/93, and as confirmed in recital (10) of theprovisional Regulation, all seamless pipes and tubes fallingwithin the abovementioned CN codes are considered as oneproduct (hereinafter referred to as the ‘product concerned')for thepurpose of both the new investigation and the review invest-igation.
2.Like product
(12)All seamless pipes and tubes subject to both investigations were
found to be alike in their essential physical and technical charac-teristics and in their end uses, irrespective of whether they aremanufactured in the Community or in the countries subject to theinvestigations.
Some exporters argued that their products should not be consid-
ered as like products with those of the Community producers orthose of other exportingproducers on the g rounds that there werequality and technical differences, as well as differences in thedistribution channels, use and perception by the market.
It was found, however, that the product concerned is distributed
through similar channels. Basic application and overall use aresimilar. There is a high degree of interchangeability, and conse-quently of competition, between all imported products subject toboth investigations and those manufactured by the Communityproducers. It was also established that the basic technical andphysical characteristics of all these imported products, despiteminor differences, were identical to, or closely resembled, thoseof the products manufactured by Community producers.
In conclusion, the products originating in the various countries
covered by the investigation and those produced and sold in theCommunity are considered like products within the meaningofArticle 1 (4) of the basic Regulation.
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 6
▼B
C.DUMPING
ANTI-DUMPING INVESTIGATION
1.Czech Republic
(a)Cooperation
(13)The company ruled to be non-cooperatingsubsequently wrote to
the Commission to object to this treatment, claimingthat theprovisions of Article 18 of the basic Regulation were not applic-able to it. It stressed that there had been no intention to misleadand argued that the company had acted to the best of its ability;this meant that even though the domestic and export sales list-ings, credit note listings, customer turnover figures and cost ofproduction information were admitted to be far from ideal, theCommission was duty bound not to disregard them. It also criti-cised the Commission for not takingsufficiently into account theprivatization difficulties experienced by the company and thespecial problems of the Czech Republic in its transition to marketeconomy status. Finally, it argued that, since the company hadchanged ownership in April 1997 (having ceased production theprevious month), it would be unfair to impose sanctions on thenew owner.
The reasons which led the Commission to consider one of the
Czech companies as not cooperatingwith the investig ation are setout in recital 14 of the provisional Regulation. It is worthrecallinghere that the listing s submitted to the Commission in thecompany’s reply to the questionnaire were found on verificationto contain several hundred domestic and export transactionswhich had never taken place. This was not only highlymisleadingbut meant that the Commission was unable to estab-lish, with any degree of certainty, either a reliable normal valueor a reliable export price. Whatever the reasons for this (and atthis point the Commission would point out that the explanationoriginally provided by the company was totally unsatisfactoryand completely different from the one it submitted later inwriting), it cannot be said to be in accordance with generallyaccepted accountingprinciples. In the circumstances, theCommission had no choice other than to reject the reply and toapply Article 18 of the basic Regulation, not least because tohave acted otherwise would have been to discriminate againstother, fully cooperating, companies in the investigation.
As regards the matter of the change of ownership, since this took
place after the end of the investigation period, it is not a factorwhich can be considered relevant to this proceeding(see Article6 (1) of the basic Regulation).
(b)Normal value
(14)One of the Czech producers questioned the methodology
employed by the Commission to determine normal value for oneproduct group (see recital (16) of the provisional Regulation); inparticular, it claimed that there was nothingin the basic Reg ula-tion which justified the Commission calculatingnormal value onthe basis of the average of profitable sales only, instead of on thebasis of the average of all sales in the group. The same producerobjected to the Commission’s use, in constructingnormal valuefor certain groups, of a profit margin achieved on profitabledomestic sales in other product groups.
This request could not be accepted, since it runs counter to both
the basic Regulation and the Community institutions’ consistentpractice. With regard to the first point, where the volume ofdomestic sales below unit cost represents more than 20 % ofsales, normal value is based on the profitable sales only, inaccordance with the third subparagraph of Article 2 (4) of thebasic Regulation. With regard to the second point, the Commis-sion acted in accordance with Article 2 (6) of the basic Regula-
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 7
▼B
tion by applyingthe profit marg in on sales ‘in the ordinary
course of trade, of the like product, by the exporter or producerunder investigation'.
One producer also objected to the substitution of its own selling,
general and administrative (hereinafter referred to as SG& A)expenses by those of its related company (see recital (16) of theprovisional Regulation) on the grounds that such expenses shouldbe based on ‘actual data' relatingto the producer under invest-igation, in accordance with Article 2 (6) of the basic Regulation.The Commission considered that the relevant accountingdocu-ments submitted by the producer insufficiently supported thefigures submitted in its reply to the questionnaire. After beingnotified of the Commission’s intentions, the company providedfurther explanations and tables but, since these constituted addi-tional information which was not verifiable, the informationcould not be taken into account.
Both cooperatingproducers queried the removal from the trans-
action listings of sales made to each other on the grounds thatthey were not related and that, even if they were, the Commissionhad failed to show that the prices were affected by the relation-ship.
This could not be accepted. Since both companies have a
common shareholder (see recital (22) of the provisional Regula-tion and recital (17) below), they are related. Furthermore, Article2 (1) of the basic Regulation clearly states that ‘prices betweenparties which appear to be associated (…) may not be consideredto be in the ordinary course of trade (…) unless it is determinedthat they are unaffected by the relationship'. Since it was notestablished that this was the case, the disputed transactions werenot reinstated.
No further comments were received in respect of normal value
and the Council therefore confirms the findings as set out in theprovisional Regulation.
(c)Export price
(15)No comments were received concerningthe determination of the
export price. Nonetheless, a small adjustment to the profit margindeduction was made in respect of the related Austrian importer(see recital (18) of the provisional Regulation) after reviewing theprofit margins achieved by unrelated importers during the courseof the investigation.
(d)Comparison
(16)No comments were received under this headingand the Commis-
sion’s findings are therefore confirmed.
(e)Dumping margin
(17)The cooperatingcompanies objected to the Commission’s
decision to establish the dumpingmarg in on the basis of acomparison of weighted average normal values with individualexport prices (rather than weighted average export prices),arguing that the Commission had failed to provide sufficientjustification for its approach at recital (21) of the provisionalRegulation.
In that Regulation, the Commission stated that its approach was
justified by the need to reflect the full degree of dumping beingpractised and because there was a pattern of export prices whichdiffered significantly between Member States and between timeperiods. The Commission has reviewed its calculations andconcluded that the variations in export prices between countriesdid not display a sufficiently clear pattern. However, theCommission stands by its findingthat there was a pattern ofexport prices between time periods which led to a significantincrease in dumping(constitutinga clear pattern) after the expiry
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 8
▼B
of quantitative restrictions on 31 December 1995, and theapproach adopted in the provisional Regulation is thereforeconfirmed.
The Commission’s decision to treat both cooperatingproducers
as beingrelated, and the consequent establishment of a sing ledumping margin for them, was strongly objected to on thegrounds that both companies were managed independently ofeach other and had different cost and pricingstructures. It wasfurther argued that the majority shareholder (the National Prop-erty Fund) acted merely as a trustee and had no influence overthe commercial management of the companies.
The Commission takes the view that in a market economy
country it is up to the majority shareholder to decide in whichlegal form it organizes its business interests in the exportingcountry. Its control, or potential control, over such interests isnormally the same if they are part of one legal entity or if theyare organized in different legal entities. More specifically, toestablish different dumpingmarg ins for related companies entailsthe risk that exports may be channelled through the companywith the lowest dumpingmarg in. For this reason it wasconcluded that different producers in the exportingcountry mustnevertheless be treated as one single entity for the purposes ofthis proceeding, where control of all those companies lies in thehands of the same shareholder.
(18)On the basis of the Commission’s provisional findings, describedin recitals (14)-(23) of the provisional Regulation, and taking intoaccount the adjustment described at recital (15) above, the defin-itive dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF freeCommunity frontier value of imports established for the twocooperatingcompanies are:
— Nová Hut a.s. 5,1 %,
— Vítkovice a.s. 5,1 %.
The calculation of the residual dumpingmarg in was revised.
Instead of takingthe hig hest normal values found for the twoCzech producers, weighted average normal values have beenused in the final determination. On this basis, the residualdumping margin expressed as a percentage of the CIF freeCommunity frontier value of imports established for the twocooperatingcompanies is now 28,6 %.
2.Romania
(a)Normal value
(19)One company claimed that cost provisions included in the SG&
A costs of the company should be removed in view of the factthat unused provisions were cancelled at the end of the year.Where provisions were indeed cancelled and no other cost hadthen replaced such provisions, and insofar as it could be clearlyseen from information contained in the response to the question-naire or provided duringthe on-spot verification that provisionsdid not represent a real cost, the calculation of SG& A costs wasadjusted.
One company made a claim that cost of production should be
adjusted to reflect the absence of sellingcosts, principally forpacking, incurred for sales made on the domestic market. It wasargued that with regard to such selling costs, included in thecalculation of normal value by the Commission, the company hadin fact been reimbursed by its customers. The Commissionaccepted this and an appropriate revision has therefore been madeto the cost of production calculation for this company.
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 9
▼B
One company claimed that when the Commission establishesnormal value, it should use all sales includingthose not made inthe ordinary course of trade, i.e. sales made at a loss. TheCommission, in view of Article 2 (4) of the basic Regulation,considered that sales made at a loss have to be excluded from theestablishment of normal value where such sales constitute morethan 20 % of all domestic sales. The claim by this company couldtherefore not be accepted, given the terms of the basic Regulationand the institutions’ consistent practice in the establishment ofnormal value.
Two companies argued that in order to respect the Europe Agree-
ment, the Commission should in establishingnormal valuesalways choose the method most favourable to the companies,citing Article 34 (2) of the Agreement. This argument wasrejected, on the grounds that Article 34 (2) of the Agreementrefers only to the choice of measures to be imposed by theCommission once dumping, injury, causality and Communityinterest have been established, and not to the actual calculationmethodologies used in the determination.
One company claimed only at a very late stage in the proceeding
(at the hearingfor comments on provisional disclosure) that salesfrom stock should be excluded from the calculation of normalvalue as not possessingquality certificates and therefore notconstitutingthe like product, and that all sales made usingcompensation as means of payment should likewise be excludedas not beingin the ordinary course of trade. These claims werenot made in an opportune manner, havingbeen made neither inthe response to the questionnaire, nor on-the-spot, nor at anysubsequent stage of the proceeding when the company wasinvited to make comments. In no document submitted by thecompany was the Commission able to differentiate between salesmade from stock or otherwise, or between sales made with orwithout quality certificates. In addition, duringthe course of theinvestigation, it was found that sales made using compensationwere indeed made in the ordinary course of trade. Consequently,both claims were rejected.
No further comments were received. Takinginto account the
changes referred to above, the findings with regard to normalvalue as disclosed in the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
(b)Export price
(20)No changes were made to the methodology used to calculate
export prices. The findings with regard to export prices asdisclosed in the provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed.
(c)Comparison
(21)For the provisional findings, the Commission rejected a request
by two Romanian companies for an adjustment to the normalvalue for credit terms. The two companies reiterated theirrequest. However, it was established duringthe investig ation that,in the vast majority of cases in Romania, no actual cash changedhands in the settlement of transactions. In fact, payment wasusually effected by ‘compensation', consistingeither of bartertrade or the exchange of trade bills. Article 2 (10) (g) of the basicRegulation specifies that an adjustment shall be made for credit,provided that it is a factor taken into account in the determinationof the prices charged. The investigation showed that such costswere not a factor taken into account in the determination ofprices charged. In fact, where compensation was the means ofpayment, no money changed hands and there was therefore noimpact on the financial situation of the companies. In addition,the investigation showed that for all means of payment, dates ofsettlement were normally not respected. The claims for a creditadjustment were therefore rejected again.
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 10
▼B
One company claimed that for export sales made to certaincustomers in the Community, no commission had been paid andthat no adjustment to the export prices charged to thosecustomers should be made. The Commission revised its calcula-tions accordingly.
One company claimed an adjustment to normal value for differ-
ences in level of trade. As such a claim was not made at anypoint in the investigation prior to the company’s comments onthe provisional findings of the Commission, it could not beconsidered valid. It was, furthermore, not substantiated by anyevidence and was in contradiction with information the companyhad reported in its reply to the questionnaire and provided duringthe on-the-spot verification.
No further comments were received with respect to comparison.
The provisional findings are therefore confirmed.
(d)Dumping margin
(22)One company claimed that the calculation of the dumpingmarg in
should not be made on the basis of a comparison of weightedaverage normal values with the adjusted export price of eachcorrespondingg roup on a transaction-by-transaction basis, but ona weighted average to weighted average basis.
This claim was rejected after the methodology used for all
Romanian companies was reconsidered and it was found that:
— for one company, there was no difference in dumpingmarg in
between both methods as all export transactions were made atdumped prices;
— for three companies, a pattern of export prices which differed
significantly by destination or time period was found.
In view of the above, and in accordance with Article 2 (11) of the
basic Regulation, the method comparing the weighted averagenormal value by time period to individual adjusted export priceson a transaction-by-transaction basis was retained for thepurposes of the definitive determination.
All cooperatingRomanian producers/exporters contested the fact
that the Commission had — on the grounds of a commonmajority shareholding — imposed a single dumping margin, andthey accordingly claimed individual treatment. For the reasons setout in recital (17), this request could not be accepted.
Two companies argued that the Commission should have
disclosed to them all elements of the dumpingcalculations for allcompanies, since these had been used to establish the globaldumpingmarg in; by failingto do so, the Commission would haveinfringed their rights of defence. The Commission has, in accord-ance with Article 20 (1) of the basic Regulation, explained indetail to each company the essential facts and considerations onwhich it calculated that company’s individual dumpingmarg inand furthermore explained the methodology used to establish thesingle dumping margin. As all companies have the same majorityshareholder, they can easily exchange all information via thatcommon shareholder and thus fully exercise their rights ofdefence.
No further comments were received. The findings as disclosed in
the provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed.
(23)The weighted average dumping margins definitively establishedfor the four cooperatingproducers expressed as a percentag e ofthe CIF free Community frontier value of imports are:
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 11
▼B
— SC Artrom SA: 9,8 %
— SC Petrotub SA: 9,8 %— SC Republica SA Trade Company: 9,8 %— SC Silcotub SA: 9,8 %.
The residual dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the
CIF free Community frontier value of imports remainsunchanged at 38,2 %.
3.Slovak Republic
(a)Normal value
(24)The Slovak producer questioned the methodology employed by
the Commission to determine normal value for two productgroups (see recital (31) of the provisional Regulation); in partic-ular, it claimed that the Commission was wrongto have calcu-lated normal value on the basis of the average of profitable salesonly, and that it should have taken the average of all sales in thegroups instead. The reason it gave was that the groups wereprofitable overall and therefore all costs were recovered over theinvestigation period on a weighted average basis. In addition, itwas argued, citing Article 34 (2) of the Europe Agreement, thatthe Commission should have used its discretion to adopt amethod which ‘least disturb[s] the functioningof [that] Ag ree-ment'.
Both these arguments were rejected for the same reasons given at
recital (19) above.
No further comments with respect to normal value were received
and the Commission’s findings as disclosed in the provisionalRegulation are therefore confirmed.
(b)Export price
(25)The company objected to the Commission’s construction of the
export price (see recital (32) of the provisional Regulation), andin particular to its decision to deduct a 4 % profit margin fromthe prices charged by its Italian subsidiary. It argued that thismargin was excessive and that the Commission should have usedthe Italian company’s own figures. It also claimed that theCommission had misinterpreted the SG& A figures submitted bythe company, and that the effect of this had been to increase itsSG& A rate and consequently the dumpingmarg in. It alsosuggested that a more correct approach would have been toconsolidate both companies’ SG& A expenses and apply a singlerate.
The Commission based the margin of 4 % on the average of the
profit margins achieved by the four unrelated importers listed atrecital (6) (c) of the provisional Regulation. However, it hasreviewed the figures and concluded that, for the purposes of thedefinitive determination, an adjusted figure of 3,8 % should beapplied. Although it was objected that two of the four importerswere in fact related to Community producers, the Commissionsatisfied itself that the profit margins found for these companiesreflected the profit on their sales to independent customers in theCommunity. With regard to the SG& A rate, the Commissionreviewed the figures and concluded not only that the expenseshad indeed been overstated, but also that it would have beenmore appropriate to consolidate the Swiss and Italian tradingcompanies’ figures, given that they had a similar relationshipwith the Slovak exporter and operated mostly out of the samepremises. A gobal SG& A rate has accordingly been applied.
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 12
▼B (c)Comparison
(26)The company had claimed a ‘distribution channel allowance'
which the Commission, it said, had failed to take account of in itsprovisional determination. It argued that such an allowance wasjustified in order to reflect the fact that the company sold directlyto stockists on its domestic market whereas it sold through itsrelated Italian and Swiss companies on the Community market; italso argued that the allowance was necessary to ensure a faircomparison with the constructed export sales price.
This claim is covered under the discounts and quantities allow-
ance already granted to the company. Article 2 (10) of the basicRegulation explicitly states that ‘any duplication when makingadjustments shall be avoided, in particular in relation todiscounts, rebates, quantities and level of trade'.Since the normalvalue has already been adjusted downwards to reflect the fact thatsales in the Community were mainly to large customers, there isno justification for granting a further allowance.
No further comments were received, and the Commission’s find-
ings are therefore confirmed.
(d)Dumping margin
(27)The company objected to the Commission’s decision to establish
the dumping margin on the basis of a comparison of weightedaverage adjusted normal values with adjusted individual exportprices (rather than weighted average export prices), arguing thatthe Commission had failed to provide sufficient justification forits approach at recital (34) of the provisional Regulation.
Whilst the Commission stands by its reasoningset out in the said
recital (34), the modifications it has since made to the figuresused to calculate the dumpingmarg in have resulted in the differ-ence between the two methods no longer being of such a magni-tude as to justify its original approach. It has therefore decided,for the purposes of the definitive determination, to revert to themethod of comparing the weighted average normal value with theweighted average export price. The provisional findings havebeen amended accordingly.
(28)On the basis of the Commission’s previous findings, described inrecitals (31)-(35) of the provisional Regulation, and taking intoaccount the changes referred to above, the dumping marginexpressed as a percentage of the CIF free Community frontiervalue of imports established for the cooperatingproducer is:
— Železiarne Podbrezová a.s.: 7,5 %.
The residual dumpingmarg in is set at the same level.
4.Russia
(a)Cooperation
(29)Five of the six Russian companies wrote to the Commission to
object to its decision to treat them as non-cooperating. Thereasons for the Commission’s decision are set out in recital (36)of the provisional Regulation. The companies argued that, despiteany deficiencies the replies may have contained, they themselveshad been willingto cooperate with the investig ation and had beenready to supply any additional information the Commissionmight have required. Certain companies requested individualtreatment, or offered to subscribe to an individual undertaking, orasked for their comparative advantages to be taken into consid-eration.
The Commission, however, remains of the view that, by failingto
provide information which was accurate, complete, and in theform requested, the Russian companies have forfeited their right
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 13
▼B
to be considered as cooperatingparties in the investig ation.
Although it is not disputed that some replies were more detailedthan others, they were all deficient in one, overridingrespect:they did not allow the Commission to arrive at an accuratedetermination either of normal value or of the export pricebecause of the way in which individual products and transactionshad been grouped together. Some companies submitted furtherinformation subsequent to the Commission informingthem of itsdecision to apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation, and somecontinued to submit new or revamped information even after thepublication of the provisional Regulation. The fact remains,though, that the information in the Commission’s possession atthe time of the deadline for submittingreplies was deemed insuf-ficient in respect of all six companies. It would be discriminatoryto other interested parties cooperatingwith the investig ation ifinformation were taken into account which was submitted days,weeks and sometimes months after the deadline for submittingithas passed.
The Commission’s findings are therefore confirmed.
(b)Dumping margin
(30)The Commission recalculated the Russian dumpingmarg in using
the same normal values as were used in revisingthe Czechresidual margin (see recital (18)). On this basis a dumping marginexpressed as a percentage of the CIF free Community frontiervalue of imports of 26,8 % was established.
REVIEW INVESTIGATION
1.General
(31)The producers/exporters in Poland and Hungary failed to provide
detailed information on individual products as requested by theCommission in the product description table included in all ques-tionnaires sent, but presented it split into product groups,covering a range of products, classified together by reference tocertain criteria, e.g. wall thicknesses. In some cases, therefore,the groups contained products classified under different CNcodes. For this reason, and because of the impossibility ofcollectingmore detailed information on-the-spot, the Commissioncould only base its calculations on product groups, rather than onindividual products.
2.Hungary
(a)Normal value
(32)During the investigation period, the sole Hungarian producer/
exporter sold four product groups in the European Community.Groups 1, 2 and 3 fell entirely under CN code 7304 39 91,whereas group 4 included a mix of models partly falling underCN code 7304 39 91, and partly under CN code 7304 39 93. Thetechnical information provided and verified was not detailedenough to enable the Commission to split product group 4 intothe two CN codes. Takinginto account that Eurostat statisticsshowed considerable imported quantities fallingunder CN code7304 39 93 for the investigation period, and that only oneHungarian producer/exporter had sold the product concerned tothe Community duringthe same period, the Commission consid-ered product group 4 as falling entirely under CN code7304 39 93.
It was found on the spot that the detailed export figures provided
by the company were unreliable as one Community customer,accountingfor 7 % of the reported sales to the Community of theproduct concerned, had been omitted and the computer file ofexport transactions was also found to be incorrect in otherrespects, a deficiency the company could not correct. The 5 %global representativity test was then performed by comparing the
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 14
▼B
quantities sold domestically with Eurostat import statistics fromHungary, which the Commission selected as an independentsource of information, in accordance with Article 18 (5) of thebasic Regulation. On this basis it was determined that in all casesthe domestic sales could be considered representative for theestablishment of normal value, both globally and at productgroup level, in accordance with Article 2 (2) of the basic Regula-tion.
For each of the four groups mentioned above, it was then deter-
mined whether domestic sales could be considered to have beenmade in the ordinary course of trade. For groups 2 and 3, profit-able sales constituted less than 10 % of the domestic sales ofthese product groups. Therefore, for these groups, normal valuehad to be constructed in accordance with Article 2 (3) of thebasic Regulation. This was done on the basis of the cost ofmanufacture plus an amount for SG& A costs and profit. For thispurpose, the producer/exporter’s actual data pertainingto produc-tion and sales in the ordinary course of trade were taken intoaccount. As far as product groups 1 and 4 were concerned,between 10 % and 80 % of domestic sales were profitable.Accordingly, for these two groups, normal values were estab-lished on the basis of profitable sales only, in accordance withArticle 2 (4) of the basic Regulation. As the four product groupsdefined by the company corresponded to CN codes 7304 39 91and 7304 39 93, the Commission decided to determine onenormal value per CN code. Since the export transaction listingwas found to be unreliable and could not be used as a basis toweight the first three product groups, it was impossible to deter-mine the weighted average of the normal values found for thethree groups. Therefore, the arithmetical average of the normalvalues calculated for the three correspondingproduct g roups wastaken into account in order to establish normal value for CN code7304 39 91. As explained above, the Commission considered CNcode 7304 39 93 as correspondingto product g roup 4. Accord-ingly, the normal value for CN code 7304 39 93 was that deter-mined for product group 4.
(b)Export price
(33)As explained in the precedingrecital, in the course of the verifi-
cation visit at the premises of the sole Hungarian exporterconcerned, it became apparent that the data submitted in thequestionnaire reply concerningexports showed sig nificant diver-gences from the company’s internal records.
Further to the verification visit, the company was informed in
writingthat, due to the substantial anomalies found on the spotand the impossibility of properly establishingthe real exportfigures, it was impossible to use the information submitted for thedetermination of the export price to the Community and thatfindings concerning the export price would have to be based onthe facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basicRegulation. The company was, at the same time, given an oppor-tunity to submit comments. At that point, a completely new filewas submitted, which was allegedly the correct version of theexport transaction listing. This file was rejected by the Commis-sion, as the new information could not be verified.
In order to establish Hungarian export prices, the Commission
selected as an independent source of information the officialimport statistics published by Eurostat, in accordance with Article18 (5) of the basic Regulation. However, only the quantitiesreported therein for the two CN codes which were exported bythis producer to the European Community were taken intoaccount.
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 15
▼B
(c)Comparison
(34)For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal value
and the export price at ex-works level, due allowance in the formof adjustments was made for differences which were claimed anddemonstrated to affect price comparability. The adjustments weremade, in accordance with Article 2 (10) of the basic Regulation,in respect of transport, insurance, handlingand ancillary costsand credit costs.
As far as requests for adjustments for
— Import charges and indirect taxes,— Discounts, rebates and quantities,— Level of trade,— Currency conversion
are concerned, the followingshould be noted:Import charges and indirect taxesThe company claimed an allowance of 8 % for extra customs
duties paid on raw materials imported, in accordance with Article2 (10) (b) of the basic Regulation. However, in the course of theon-the-spot verification, the Commission officials found that noduties were refunded for the exported products. Therefore, theclaim was considered to be unfounded.
Discounts, rebates and quantitiesThe company requested an adjustment of 4 % for differences in
volumes bought by domestic and Community customers inaccordance with Article 2 (10) (c) of the basic Regulation,claimingthat lower prices were paid for larg er orders. Since noevidence was produced in support of this claim, it was rejected.
Level of tradeThe company claimed an allowance of 12 % for differences in
distribution channels between the Community and the domesticmarkets in accordance with Article 2 (10) (d) of the basic Regu-lation. It was alleged that all Community customers were inde-pendent traders, whereas 49 % of domestic customers were end-users. This figure, reported in the table describing the distributionchannels in the domestic sales section of the questionnaire, wasnot consistent with the data contained in the domestic customerlist, where all domestic customers were listed as ‘independenttraders', a situation equivalent to that prevailingon theCommunity market. The exporter claimed that this inconsistencywas due to a ‘language error'.Whether or not this was indeed a‘language error' is irrelevant since, in addition to this inconsis-tency in the company’s reply, the Commission officials alsofound that the domestic prices applied by the company weresubject to the same pricingpolicy/price list, reg ardless of the typeof customer. This claim could, therefore, not be taken intoaccount.
Currency conversionAs far as the conversion of export price is concerned, the
exporter argued that monthly exchange rates should have beenused, rather than a yearly rate. However, it should be recalled thatthe determination of export price was based on Eurostat datasince the transaction-by-transaction listingsubmitted by theexporter could not be used. Since Eurostat data do not focus onthe date of sale, but on the date of the importer’s customsdeclaration, the use of monthly data would not have more appro-priately reflected the terms of sale. The claim made by theexporter could not, therefore, be accepted.
(d)Dumping margin
(35)The comparison, on a CN code basis, of weighted average
normal values and weighted average export prices, revealed the
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 16
▼B
existence of dumping, the dumping margin corresponding to theamount by which the normal value exceeded the export price.
Expressed as a percentage of the CIF free at Community frontier
value of imports, the dumping margin for the sole Hungarianproducer/exporter is:
— Csepel Tubes Co. Ltd: 36,5 %.
Since the sole known producer accounted for almost all
Hungarian exports of the product concerned to the Community,the residual dumpingmarg in was set at the same level.
3.Poland
(a)Cooperation
(36)Replies to the Commission’s questionnaire were received from
six companies, three of which (submitted by two producer/expor-ters and one related tradingcompany) were judg ed to be insuffi-cient. It was therefore concluded that these three companies hadfailed to provide, within the time limits set, the informationdeemed necessary to the investigation and the companies wereinformed of the Commission’s intention to apply Article 18 (1) ofthe basic Regulation and to base its findings on the facts avail-able.
The three other companies, whose replies were considered suffi-
cient (two producers/exporters and one tradingcompany relatedto a producer/exporter), were subsequently verified on the spot.Of the two producers/exporters, one refused, however, to providethe Commission officials with copies of basic documents such asthe domestic sales, customer and price listings, original domesticsales invoices, and the list of export customers correspondingtothe codes in their export sales listing. The verification alsoshowed that the company had failed to report in its reply its salesto the Community duringthe investig ation period effected via arelated company. In view of these deficiencies and the impossi-bility of verifyingessential parts of the information provided bythe company, the Commission was unable to use the informationsubmitted for the determination of the normal value and theexport price to the Community. Accordingly, the company wassubsequently informed that, as a result of its non-cooperation, theCommission would base its findings on the facts available inaccordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
(b)Normal value
Cooperatingparties
(37)As mentioned in recital (36), only one Polish producer/exporter
and one Polish tradingcompany could be considered as cooper-atingparties in the present review investig ation. As no individualdumpingcalculation is meaning ful in the case of a tradingcompany, one normal value for the single cooperating producer/exporter was established.
During the investigation period, the single cooperating producer/
exporter sold six product groups on both the domestic market andin the Community. The global representativity test showed that,duringthe same period, the total quantity of the productconcerned sold domestically was more than twice as great as thequantity exported to the Community. The 5 % test was thenperformed on a product group basis, from which it resulted thatall six product groups were sold in sufficient quantities on thedomestic market, and could thus be considered representative forthe determination of normal value, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation.
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 17
▼B
The profitability test showed that of six product groups, the
domestic prices paid in the ordinary course of trade could be usedas a basis for normal value for five of them, in accordance withArticle 2 (4) of the basic Regulation. The remaining productgroup had insufficient profitable sales and normal value wasconstructed on the basis of the cost of manufacture plus anamount for SG& A costs and profit, in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. For this purpose, the producer/expor-ter’s actual data pertainingto production and sales of the likeproduct on the domestic market and in the ordinary course oftrade, were taken into account.
Non-cooperatingpartiesFor the four non-cooperatingparties, in accordance with Article
18 (6) of the basic Regulation, normal value was determined onthe basis of the cooperatingproducer’s product g roup whichcorresponded to the highest normal value, since any other choicewould have rewarded non-cooperation. However, this was miti-gated by the fact that all products sold by the cooperatingproducer on its domestic market belongto the larg er diameterproduct groups covered by this investigation, which are relativelycheaper than the smaller diameter product groups, exportedexclusively by the non-cooperatingparties.
(c)Export price
Cooperatingparties
(38)Duringthe investig ation period, the cooperatingproducer sold the
product concerned in the Community both directly and via arelated Polish intermediary. The export price was determined bytakinginto account the direct transactions as well as the transac-tions concluded via one of the related tradingcompanies. Fortransactions effected via the tradingcompany, the export pricewas established by reference to the prices actually paid orpayable to it. As the related trader’s functions can be consideredsimilar to those of a trader actingon a commission basis, acommission was estimated on the basis of the tradingcompany’smark-up verified at its premises. This mark-up was deductedfrom the prices charged by the related company to independentcustomers in the Community.
Non-cooperatingpartiesIn accordance with Article 18 (5) of the basic Regulation, the
Commission selected as an independent source of information theEurostat import statistics for the CN codes concerned for thethree non-cooperatingproducer/exporters. The export price wasthen established on this basis, after deductingfrom the totalimports the quantity and value of goods sold by the cooperatingproducer in the Community both directly and via the cooperatingrelated tradingcompany.
(d)Comparison
(39)For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal value
and the export price at an ex-works level, due allowance in theform of adjustments was made for differences which wereclaimed and demonstrated to affect price comparability. Theadjustments were made, in accordance with Article 2 (10) of thebasic Regulation, in respect of physical characteristics, transport,insurance, handlingand ancillary costs, commissions and creditcosts.
(e)Dumping margin
(40)The dumpingmarg in for the cooperatingproducer was estab-
lished, on a product group basis, by comparing the weightedaverage normal value with the weighted average export price, inaccordance with Article 2 (11) of the basic Regulation. Expressedas a percentage of the total CIF Community frontier value of
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 18
▼B
imports, the dumpingmarg in for the sole cooperatingproducer is:
— Huta Batory SA: 7,1 %.
For non-cooperatingparties a residual dumpingmarg in was
calculated by comparingthe normal value as established in thelast paragraph of recital (37) with the export price as determinedin the last paragraph of recital (38). The residual margin,expressed as a percentage of the CIF Community frontier valueof imports is 33,2 %.
4.Republic of Croatia
(41)In view of the findings on injury with regard to the Republic of
Croatia (see recitals (51) and (69)), it was not considered neces-sary to pursue the investigation into dumping.
D.COMMUNITY INDUSTRY
(42)The same Community producers cooperated in the two investiga-
tions (see recital (8)). These companies represented more than90 % of the total Community production of the product subject tothe investigation, and constituted, therefore, a major proportion ofthe total production of the product concerned in the Community.
(43)A number of exporters alleged that their products were purchasedand imported by certain complainant Community producers.They claimed that these producers should be excluded from thedetermination of the Community industry for the purpose of theinjury assessment pursuant to Article 4 (1) (a) of the basicRegulation.
No substantiatingevidence to support this assertion was
provided. In addition, the investigation carried out by theCommission has shown that none of the Community producersimported the products concerned and that certain importers,related to such Community producers, imported small quantitiesof the products concerned duringthe investig ation period. Theseimports were resold in the Community market exclusively bythese related importers, which were found to have acted indepen-dently and even to have operated in competition with the saledepartments of their related producers. In any event, the exam-ination of the facts revealed that the volume of these importsaccounted for less than 3 % of the total sales volume of theseproducts on the Community market for each of the Communityproducers.
It is, therefore, considered that such a low level of imports could
not have led to any injury to the Community producers andconsequently there are no grounds for excluding these producers.
Consequently the producers mentioned in recital (8) will be
referred to hereinafter as the ‘Community industry' within themeaningof Article 4 (1) of the basic Reg ulation.
E.INJURY
1.Preliminary remark
(44)It should be mentioned that the anti-dumpingmeasures presently
in force in respect of Hungary, Poland and the Republic ofCroatia are undertakings, combining quantitative ceilings andcertain pricingcommitments, with residual ad valorem duties.
Further, it should be noted that imports of all seamless pipes and
tubes (includingtherefore the product concerned), orig inatinginthe Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic were, between 1993and 1995, subject to a tariff quota system, i.e. duty free withinthe limits of a quantitative ceiling; as soon as the ceiling was
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 19
▼B
reached, a duty of 30 % was levied. This system lapsed at the endof 1995.
(45)It should also be recalled that the present Regulation combinesthe result of two investigations, one of which has led to thepublication of a provisional Regulation. All findings regardinginjury, causation and Community interest should be read inconjunction with the findings described in the provisional Regu-lation.
2.Consumption
(46)In recital (48) of the provisional Regulation, it was stated that
Community consumption in tonnes per month amounted to89 900 tonnes in 1992, 69 700 in 1993, 84 070 in 1994, 92 730 in1995 and 92 130 during the investigation period. These findingswere not contested and are confirmed.
3.Dumped imports
(a)Cumulation
(47)In the provisional Regulation, the Commission concluded that the
dumped imports from Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania andthe Slovak Republic should be assessed cumulatively for thepurpose of injury analysis, on the grounds that the productsconcerned were imported from each exportingcountry insubstantial quantities, held a significant market share andcompeted with each other and with those manufactured by theCommunity industry.
(48)Some exporters claimed that due to differences in volume andrates of growth of imports, as well as in conditions ofcompetition, the impact of these exports to the Communityshould be examined on an individual basis.
(49)In this respect, the Commission recalls that the criteria set out inArticle 3 (4) of the basic Regulation were found to be met inorder to cumulate the imports from all four countries concerned,namely:
— the margin of dumping established and relating to each
country was more than de minimis (i.e. between 5,1 % and
38,2 %);
— the volume of imports from each country was not negligible;
none of the exportingcountries held a de minimis market
share, namely below 1 %, since their market shares rangedfrom 3 % to 8,3 %;
— with regard to the conditions of competition both between
imported products and products sold by the Communityindustry, the imported products were found to be interchange-able, to be followingsimilar price trends, to have similarchannels of distribution and similar low-price policy resultingin a high level of price undercutting (i.e. between 17,5 % and43,2 %), to be simultaneously present in the same geograph-ical areas and to compete therefore with each other and withthose manufactured by the Community industry.
The fact that imports of the product concerned originating in the
Czech Republic and the Slovak, Republic were subject to atariff-quota system applyinguntil 31 December 1995 does notalter the conclusion that these imports fulfil the criteria laid downin Article 3 (4) of the basic Regulation. It should be noted, in anycase, that, after the expiry of this system, the market shares of theimports concerned increased from 6,7 % in 1995 to 9,6 % duringthe first eight months of 1996 for Czech imports and from 2,1 %to 3,4 % over the same period for Slovak imports.
For all the above reasons, it is concluded that the conclusions
reached in recital (49) of the provisional Regulation should bemaintained.
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 20
▼B
(50)Takinginto account the two simultaneous investig ations, it was
also examined whether effects of imports from Hungary, Polandand Croatia should be assessed cumulatively with those of thenew investigation.
(51)With regard to imports from Croatia, it was established that itsshare held in the Community market declined from 1,8 % in 1992to 0,7 % in the investigation period. Given the low and sharplydecreasinglevel of these imports, a situation contrary to the onefound for the other imports, it was not considered appropriate thatthese imports should be analysed cumulatively. In the light of thefact that imports from Croatia are subject to anti-dumpingmeas-ures, this conclusion is reached also takinginto account thefindings in recital (70) below on the absence of likelihood ofrecurrence of injury.
(52)With respect to imports from Hungary and Poland, it was foundthat, as with the imports of the new investigation, quantitiesimported and dumping margins were significant.
It has been claimed that imports originating in Hungary are
negligible and should therefore be disregarded for cumulationpurposes in accordance with Article 3 (4) of the basic Regulation.However, the investigation did not show that these imports wereactually negligible.
In addition, for both investigations, the conditions of competition
found between the imported products and between the importedproducts and the Community products were similar, in particular,because all the products were considered as like products andwere sold at prices substantially undercuttingthose of theCommunity industry (i.e. from 17 % to 21,3 % for Poland,25,4 % for Hungary). The fact that these imports were subject toquantitative undertakings during the period considered has nobearingon the conclusion that they can be cumulated with theother imports under investigation for injury examinationpurposes. Indeed, even if there were limitations to the quantitiesexported to the Community and a certain increase in their pricelevel as compared with the prices of the exporters in the countriessubject to the new investigation, imports originating in Hungaryand Poland have, nevertheless, continued to be made at dumpedprices undercuttingquite sig nificantly those of Communityproducers.
(53)The above considerations on cumulation led, therefore, to theconclusion that a cumulative assessment of the effect of thedumped imports from the countries subject to both investigations,with the exception of Croatia, was warranted (hereinafter the‘exportingcountries').
(b)Cumulated volume and market share ofdumped imports
(54)The provisional findings according to which, on a cumulated
basis, imports decreased from 201 920 tonnes in 1992 to 96 080tonnes in 1993, and then increased to 195 220 tonnes in 1994,230 810 tonnes in 1995 and 268 670 tonnes in the investigationperiod were not contested and are therefore confirmed.
The same applies to the correspondingmarket shares amounting
to 18,7 % in 1992, 11,5 % in 1993, 19,4 % in 1994, 20,7 % in1995 and 24,3 % in the investigation period.
(c)Prices ofdumped imports
(55)For the determination of price undercuttingreg ardingthe
exportingcountries, the data analysed referred to the invest-igation period. For this purpose, comparison was made betweenweighted average selling prices of the exporting countriesconcerned and weighted average sales prices of Communityproducers for the seamless steel tubes concerned. Price compar-ison was made on the basis of sales to the first independentcustomer in the Community. In order to ensure comparability, theprices of Community producers and those of the imported prod-
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 21
▼B
ucts were, where appropriate, adjusted in terms of transparentcost to ex-works or CIF Community frontier level. In addition,the import prices were adjusted by an importer’s margin,includingcustoms clearance, handlingcharg es, commission,financingcost and profit based on information available.
The results of the comparison showed margins of undercutting
for all countries and exporters concerned. The weighted averageprice undercutting margins expressed as a percentage ofCommunity producers’ prices were as follows:
— Czech Republic: from 21,2 % to 43,2 %
— Hungary: 25,7 %— Poland: from 17 % to 21,3 %— Romania: 25,8 %— Russia: 41,5 %— Slovak Republic: 17,5 %.
4.Situation of the Community industry
(56)For ease of reference, the results already presented in the provi-
sional Regulation on the situation of the Community industry areonce again shown below and confirmed for the purpose of thedefinitive determination since they were not disputed by theparties.
(a)Capacity, production and utilization rate
(57)Between 1992 and the investigation period, eleven production
plants and facilities ceased production, representinga reductionof about one fourth of the total production capacity of seamlesssteel tubes existingin the Community at the beg inningof theperiod.
Production of the Community industry fell from 1 136 640 tonnes
in 1992 to 996 036 tonnes in 1995 and to 938 184 tonnes duringthe investigation period. In line with the substantial reduction ofcapacity, the correspondingrates of capacity utilization rose from63,5 % to 75,9 %, and fell back to 71,3 % over the same period.
(b)Sales volume and market share
(58)Sales of Community producers declined from 781 770 tonnes in
1992 to 775 721 tonnes in 1995 and to 722 042 tonnes duringtheinvestigation period.
The market share held by the Community industry decreased
from 75,2 % in 1992 to 72,1 % in 1995, and dropped by a further4,8 % to 67,3 % duringthe investig ation period.
(c)Sales prices
(59)On average, unit prices of the product concerned sold by the
Community producers on the Community market, expressed inecu per tonne, were 576 in 1992, 578 in 1995 and 593 duringtheinvestigation period, corresponding to an overall increase of 3 %.
(d)Profitability
(60)The Community industry incurred financial losses on its sales of
the like product duringthe period under consideration. Between1992 and 1994, these losses averaged 8 %. There followed animprovement in return on sales in 1995 (-2,1 %), and in theinvestigation period without reaching break-even. Profitabilitypercentage levels were as follows:
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 22
▼B
1992 1993 1994 1995Invest-
igation
period
−7,0 −12,2 −7,9 −2,2 −0,7
This reduction in losses was to a considerable extent possible
because of the anti-dumpingmeasures in force in this sector. Inthe absence of these measures, there would have been even less,if any, reduction in financial losses. Furthermore, the slightrecovery took place duringa period when substantial restruc-turingefforts were made, leading , inter alia , to the abovemen-
tioned closure of plants. These developments were, however, notsufficient to generate the level of earnings that would be requiredby the Community industry to cover its increasingproductioncosts and the high investment in restructuring, make a reasonableprofit, recover from previous years’ losses and ensure its longterm viability.
(e)Employment
(61)Employment in the Community industry declined continuously
by around 35 % between 1992 and the end of the investigationperiod, amountingin absolute terms to a loss of about 2 800 jobs.
5.Final conclusion on injury
(62)The examination of the economic performance of the Community
industry duringthe period under consideration showed that,between 1992 and August 1996, there was a decline in produc-tion, sales volume and market share as well as a reduction inemployment, despite considerable restructuringefforts intendedto reduce costs of production.
These restructuringefforts and the measures in place enabled the
Community industry to increase capacity utilization and improveits financial results, which, however, remained negative duringthe investigation period (-0,7 %), i.e. under the break-even point,and were insufficient to enable the Community industry to ensureits longterm viability.
It is therefore concluded that duringthe period under considera-
tion, the Community industry has suffered material injury withinthe meaningof Article 3 of the basic Reg ulation, in the form ofdecreased sales and loss of market share, reduced employmentand financial losses.
F.CAUSATION
1.Effect of dumped imports
(a)Cumulated effect of imports from the Czech Republic,
Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russia and the Slovak Republic
(63)While consumption in the Community remained relatively stable,imports from the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania,Russia and the Slovak Republic increased their total market shareby around 5,6 percentage points, from 18,7 % in 1992 to 24,3 %in the investigation period. By contrast, the Community industrylost market share by about 7,9 percentage points from 75,2 % to67,3 % over the same period. Bearingin mind that sig nificantprice undercuttingwas found for each exportingcountry, andconsideringthat the increase of market share held by the dumpedimports concerned coincided with the deterioration in theCommunity industry’s situation, it is concluded that, takentogether, imports from the six countries concerned had a negativeimpact on the situation of the Community industry.
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 23
▼B
(b)Effects of imports originating in Croatia
Considered in isolation, the imports originating in Croatia cannot
be considered as havingsig nificantly caused material injury tothe Community industry due to their decliningvolume andmarket share.
2.Effect of other factors
(a)Other imports
(64)Certain exporters claimed that imports from other countries, for
example Argentina, had been made in quantities and at prices thatwere injurious to the Community industry. The examinationrevealed that imports from other third countries, not covered bythe two investigations, increased their market share from 4,3 % in1992 to 6,5 % in 1995 and to 7,7 % duringthe investig ationperiod. Although they were increasing in volume, the prices ofthese imports were found, on the basis of the statistical dataavailable, to be distinctly higher than those of the dumpedimports, and there was no indication that imports from thirdcountries not subject to the two investigations had been dumped.It is, therefore, concluded that the other imports in question hadlittle, if any, impact on the situation of the Community industry.
(b)General economic situation
(65)As stated in the provisional Regulation, Community consumption
declined in 1993 due to the world economic recession, whichaffected in particular the users of the product concerned (carindustry, construction, etc.). In that year, the volume of imports,and the correspondingmarket share held by the exportingcoun-tries concerned, also reached a low level, and the Communityindustry experienced its poorest results in terms of sales on theCommunity market, prices and profitability.
On this basis, it is evident that the deterioration of the market in
1993 had a negative effect on the situation of the Communityindustry.
However, save in the exceptional situation of 1993, consumption
remained generally stable during the other years of the periodconsidered (1992, and 1994 to the investigation period). Thisstability, however, was mainly to the benefit of the dumpedimports from the countries concerned whose market shareincreased while the Community industry’s market share declinedcontinuously. The general economic situation cannot, therefore,be considered as a factor continuously responsible for the precar-ious situation still faced by the Community industry. Indeed,given the considerable efforts of rationalization and restructuringmade by Community producers, and the trade defence measuresin force duringthis period, the Community industry shouldclearly have recovered to a greater extent and obtained moresatisfactory results in 1995 and 1996.
(c)Restructuring ofthe Community industry
(66)It was alleged by certain exporters that the unsatisfactory perfor-
mances of the Community industry in the period examined wasdue not to the effect of dumped imports but to the restructuringcarried out by the industry at that time.
Without doubt, the restructuringprocess underg one by the
Community industry in the face of excess capacities would havebeen responsible for some of the decrease in production, salesand employment. However, given the volume and market shareof the dumped imports from the countries concerned and themargin of undercutting established, it is clear that the dumpedimports in isolation played a significant role in the material injurysuffered by the Community industry.
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 24
▼B
3.Conclusion
(67)Although the world economic recession of 1993, as well as the
restructuringof the Community industry, may have had somenegative impact on the performance of the Community industryduringthe period considered, it must be concluded, on the basisof the above considerations, that the cumulative effect of thedumped imports from the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland,Romania, Russia and the Slovak Republic, considered in isola-tion, has, through substantial price undercutting and significantquantities of dumped imports, caused material injury to theCommunity industry, and that the existinganti-dumpingmeas-ures under review have not fully achieved their intended effect.Imports originating in Croatia, considered separately, cannot beconsidered to have caused material injury to the Communityindustry.
It is worthwhile notingthat the injury caused by the dumping
suffered by the Community industry could only become worse ifthe measures which apply to certain cumulated imports were tobe repealed. Indeed, in Hungary and Poland high volumes ofcapacity are available for export to the Community, takingintoaccount that internal consumption or exports to third countriescould not absorb any additional output. Furthermore, it should benoted that capacity in Poland increased subsequent to the invest-igation period by around 15 %.
G.LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF
INJURY — CROATIA
(68)The investigation with regard to Hungary, Poland and the
Republic of Croatia was an interim review which was initiated inparallel with the new investigation in order to examine globallythe situation with regard to all imports of seamless pipes andtubes into the Community. Actual injury, caused by dumpedimports which were assessed cumulatively for the purpose ofexaminingtheir effect, was established. There was therefore noneed to further examine whether there is a likelihood of continua-tion or recurrence of material injury if the existinganti-dumpingmeasures concerningimports orig inatingin Hung ary and Polandwere removed or altered.
However, in the case of imports of Croatian origin, which were
not cumulated with other imports under investigation, such anexamination must be made.
(69)Followingthe imposition of anti-dumpingmeasures, importsfrom Croatia fell sharply from 19 201 tonnes in 1992 to 8 077tonnes duringthe investig ation period, representinga decline inmarket share from 1,8 % to 0,7 % as stated in recital 51.
Duringthe period under consideration, exports of the Croatian
producer to the Community remained far below the level of thequantitative undertakingaccepted in 1993. Because of the war-like situation in Croatia in the last few years, production facilitiesof seamless tubes were partially damaged and the work force wasconsiderably reduced. As a result, only one quarter, approxi-mately 35 000 tonnes per year of the theoretical productioncapacity was operational. The output of the product concerneddropped from around 34 000 in 1992 to 10 515 tonnes duringtheinvestigation period, thus reducing capacity utilisation from 97 %to 37 %. Domestic sales declined from 8 000 tonnes to 2 100tonnes over the same period, while exports to non-Communitycountries were negligible.
No sizeable increase of export volumes to the Community is
expected, and any price undercuttingshould have a limited effecton price depression or prevention of price increases forCommunity producers. Moreover, growing reconstruction activi-ties in former Yugoslavia should increase domestic sales andconcentrate Croatian exports on the markets in this area.
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 25
▼B
Should the measures in force for Croatia be repealed, thereappears to be no clearly foreseeable threat of increasingimportvolumes from Croatia. There is consequently no likelihood ofrecurrence of material injury.
Conclusion
(70)With regard to Croatia, it is considered that recurrence of injury,
should the existinganti-dumpingmeasures be repealed, isunlikely and that, in the circumstances as established, these meas-ures are therefore no longer necessary.
H.COMMUNITY INTEREST
1.Introduction
(71)Consideringthat both the new anti-dumpinginvestig ation and the
interim review referred to the same market, i.e. the Communitymarket of the seamless pipes and tubes in question, the exam-ination of the Community interest issue was made jointly for bothinvestigations. The purpose of this analysis was to determine thepossible impact of measures and the consequences of not takingmeasures for all parties involved in both proceedings.
(72)It should be recalled in this respect that recitals (68) et seq.of the
provisional Regulation contained an appreciation of all thevarious interests, includingthose of the Community industry, ofthe importers/traders and of the downstream user industries. Onthe basis of the information available at the time of the provi-sional Regulation, the Commission concluded that there was nocompellingreason not to remedy the trade distortingeffects ofinjurious dumping.
(73)After publication of the provisional Regulation, none of theparties concerned made comments on the Commission’s provi-sional conclusions on the Community interest issue.
However, although no user industry had cooperated in the course
of the provisional examination, the Commission pursued itsinvestigation in order to complete its analysis on the possibleeffect of measures on those industries. It approached in thisrespect the complainant, importers and a federation of differentprocessingindustries using , inter alia , the product concerned. On
the basis of these sources, seven industrial users were identifiedandad hocquestionnaires were sent to each of them. Meaningful
comments or replies were received from only four user compa-nies.
On the basis of the additional information obtained from these
replies, and takinginto account the absence of comment on thefindings contained in the provisional Regulation, the followingconclusion can be reached.
2.Impact on the Community industry
(a)Likely effect of the imposition of anti-dumping measures
(74)Followingthe adoption of anti-dumpingmeasures, the prices of
the imported product can be expected to rise. This would bereflected in a fall in the volumes imported and a reduction inmarket supply, allowingthe Community industry to increaseoutput and sales.
The Community industry’s prices would probably increase to
some extent, but certainly not by anythinglike the level of theduty, given the overcapacity described above and the transpar-ency of the market.
The increase of the Community industry’s production volume
would result in a higher utilization rate of capacity and thus areduction of unit costs of the product concerned which, as a
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 26
▼B
result, would enable the Community industry to achieve a more
satisfactory financial situation.
(b)Likely effect of non-imposition of measures
(75)Although the situation of the Community industry has improved
somewhat duringthe period under consideration, it remainsunsatisfactory. In these circumstances, if anti-dumpingmeasuresare not adopted or maintained, the situation could be expected todeteriorate again in terms of depressed production levels andcapacity utilization rates, loss of market share, financial lossesand reduction in employment. This would further threaten itscapacity to produce the whole range of products at competitivecosts.
As noted in recital (73) of the provisional Regulation, the sector
in question is dependent on a reasonable capacity utilization rate.This can be achieved only by a satisfactory level of production ofstandardized commercial, or oil, tubes which are in directcompetition with the dumped products. A decrease in the produc-tion of these standard pipes would jeopardise the production ofhigher quality product categories and, therefore, the viability ofthe whole seamless tube sector.
3.Impact of measures on importers/traders
(76)In recital (74) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission
concluded that, because Community importers are known ingeneral to handle all steel products and only a small percentageof their turnover consists of the seamless tubes in question, themeasures can be expected to have no more than a minimal effecton their overall situation, given the wide diversity of the productsthey trade.
Havingreceived no further comments in this respect, it is reason-
able to conclude that anti-dumpingmeasures will indeed haveonly a minimal effect, if any, on the situation of importers/tradersof the product concerned.
4.Impact on downstream industrial users
(77)As stated in recital (71) of the provisional Regulation, there are
several downstream user industries of the product concerned, i.e.the machinery industry, transport of fluids (oil, gas, water, etc.),the chemical and petro-chemical industries, power stations(includingnuclear), the automobile and construction industries.
From the analysis of the comments or replies received as
mentioned above (recital (73)), it is concluded that the impact onthe costs of downstream user industries of any price increasesresultingfrom adoption or continuation of anti-dumpingmeas-ures would be insignificant.
Furthermore, it should be noted that at least 85 % of the dumped
imports from the countries subject to both the new anti-dumpinginvestigation and the interim review are sold to large traders, whoappear to have been takingadvantag e of the dumped prices toimprove profit margins. Insofar as traders adjust margins to takeaccount of some or all of the effects of the measures, they couldnot be reflected at all in their sales prices.
In the light of the above, it is concluded that any price effect
resultingfrom anti-dumpingmeasures will be neg lig ible withrespect to downstream industrial users.
5.Conclusion
(78)On the basis of the above elements, it is concluded that there is
no compellingreason not to remedy the trade-distortingeffects ofinjurious dumpingand that the respective adoption and continua-tion of protective measures are in the interest of the Community.
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 27
▼B
I.DEFINITIVE DUTY
1.Countries under the new investigation
(79)It should be recalled from recital (78) et seq.of the provisional
Regulation that, in order to prevent further injury being caused bythe dumped imports concerned before the end of the proceeding,the Commission decided to adopt anti-dumpingmeasures, in theform of provisional duties.
(a)Injury margins
(80)For the purpose of determiningwhat level of duty would be
adequate to remove the injury to the Community industry causedby dumping, it was considered that a price level based on theCommunity producers’ cost of production plus a reasonableprofit margin should be calculated. A profit margin of 5 % wasregarded as an appropriate minimum, taking into account theneed for longterm investment and the return which theCommunity industry could reasonably expect in the absence ofinjurious dumping.
The injury elimination level was calculated by comparingthe
weighted average CIF import prices, duly adjusted for an inde-pendent importer’s margin, to the non-injurious price of theCommunity producers, established as above at the same level oftrade. The amounts resultingfrom this calculation were expressedas a percentage of the weighted average, free-at-Community-frontiers, value of the imported goods. The injury margins calcu-lated on that basis are set out below.
— Czech Republic: from 37,4 % to 97,9 %
— Romania: 48,3 %— Russia: 87,8 %— Slovak Republic: 31 %.
Havingreceived no further comments in this respect, the above
determination of the injury elimination level is confirmed.
(b)Definitive duty
(81)As the injury elimination margins found above are higher than
the dumpingmarg ins that have been calculated, definitive anti-dumpingduties should be set at the level of the latter, in accord-ance with Article 9 (4) of the basic Regulation. These duties,expressed as a percentage of free-at-Community frontier prices,amount to:
— Czech Republic:
Vítkovice a.s.: 5,1 %Nová Hut a.s.: 5,1 %Other imports: 28,6 %
— Romania:
SC Artrom SA: 9,8 %SC Silcotub SA: 9,8 %SC Petrotub SA: 9,8 %SC Republica SA Trade Company: 9,8 %Other imports: 38,2 %
— Slovak Republic:
Železiarne Podbrezová a.s.: 7,5 %Other imports: 7,5 %
— Russia:
All imports: 26,8 %.
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 28
▼B
2.Countries under the review investigation
(a)Hungary and Poland
(82)As a result of the findings concerning Hungary and Poland,
confirmingthat, despite the existingmeasures, dumpinghascaused injury, and consideringthat it is in the Community’sinterest that anti-dumpingmeasures with reg ard to these twocountries be maintained, a determination of a revised duty hasbeen made.
The injury margins required to remove the injury caused by
imports of Hungarian and Polish origin and calculated on thebasis of the same methodology as that used for the countriesunder the new investigation, as explained above in recital (80),are:
— for Hungary:
(Csepel Tubes Co. Ltd., sole Hungarian
producer)45,9 %
— for Poland:
Huta Batory SA: 37,2 %Others: 30,1 %.
In accordance with Article 9 (4) of the basic Regulation, the rates
of duty should be based on the lower of either the injury elimina-tion margin or the dumping margin established. The dumpingmargins with regard to the Polish producer Huta Batory and thesole Hungarian producer being below the injury margin found,the duty should be based on this lower level. For the other Polishproducers, the duty is limited to the injury margin established.
(83)On this basis, the existinganti-dumpingduties which amount to10,8 % for Poland and 21,7 % for Hungary should be replaced bythe followingduties:
— Hungary:
Csepel Tubes Co. Ltd.: 36,5 %Others: 36,5 %
— Poland:
Huta Batory SA: 7,1 %Others: 30,1 %.
(b)Republic ofCroatia
(84)Based on the conclusions reached in recital (51) and takinginto
account that there is no clearly foreseeable threat of increasingimport volumes from the Republic of Croatia (see recital (69))and that, under these circumstances, the recurrence of materialinjury is not imminent, no determination of a definitive duty hasbeen made in respect of the Republic of Croatia.
J.DEFINITIVE MEASURES
(85)The conclusions reached above as to dumping, injury, causation
and Community interest call for definitive measures, both for thecountries under the new investigation and for those under thereview investigation, with the exception of Croatia, for which theanti-dumpingproceedingshould be terminated. These measuresshould be in the form of ad valorem duties, the rates of which
have been fixed individually for cooperatingcompanies. Non-cooperatingcompanies, on the other hand, should be subject tothe residual duties.
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 29
▼B
(86)However, as regards Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic,
Romania and the Slovak Republic, it has been found appropriate,takinginto account the specific history of previous anti-dumpingproceedings concerning this product, in which those countrieswere subject either to quantitative restrictions or tariff quotas, toaccept price undertakings which have been offered up to a certainquantity threshold on a company by company basis. In otherwords, the elimination of the injury is achieved by two means:first, a price undertakingup to an annual volume thresholdexempt from the duty, and then an ad valorem duty for the
remainder.
To ensure that the quantity of imports exempted from the ad
valoremduty does not exceed the quantity in respect of which the
undertakinghas been offered, the exemption should be condi-tional on the presentation to Member States’ customs services ofa valid production certificate clearly identifyingthe producer, theproduct concerned and the details listed in the Annex. In cases ofdoubt, the Commission should make a determination as to thecertificate’s validity, and take measures as appropriate.
(87)As regards Russia, the Commission has examined an offer of ajoint undertakingfrom three of the six companies which madethemselves known duringthe investig ation, and has consideredthe possibility of these Russian producers benefitingfrom asimilar form of undertakingto that of the producers in the asso-ciated countries. However, this offer was not acceptable as it didnot contain the necessary guarantees on the part of the Russianauthorities to allow adequate monitoring, particularly with regardto the duty-free threshold. In these circumstances an ad valorem
duty should be imposed at the level definitively established.
The Council notes, however, that the measure in respect of
Russia could be modified, if ever there were a change in circum-stances such that the conditions for the acceptance of an under-takingwere met.
K.COLLECTION OF PROVISIONAL DUTY WITH REGARD TO
COUNTRIES UNDER THE NEW INVESTIGATION
(88)In view of the circumstances of the present investigation, i.e. the
change in the form and nature of the definitive measures, ascompared with the provisional ad valorem duties imposed on
imports from the Czech Republic, Romania and the SlovakRepublic, and with the existingundertaking s in respect of importsfrom Hungary, Poland and the Republic of Croatia, the Councilconsiders that it is not appropriate to collect the provisionalduties. The Council has therefore decided, in accordance withArticle 10 (2) of the basic Regulation, that the amounts securedby way of the provisional duty imposed pursuant to CommissionRegulation (EC) No 981/97 on imports of the product concernedoriginating in Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and theSlovak Republic should be released.
L.FINAL PROVISION
(89)The Commission consulted the Advisory Committee on the
acceptance of these undertakings and, since some objections wereraised, sent a report on these consultations to the Council. TheCouncil not havingdecided ag ainst the acceptance of the under-takings, the undertakings offered were accepted in accordancewith Article 8 (5) of the basic Regulation by CommissionDecision 97/790/EC (
1),
(1) See page 63 of this Official Journal.
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 30
▼B
Country ManufacturerRate of duty
(%)Taric addi-
tional CodeHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. Definitive anti-dumpingduties are hereby imposed on the
followingimports orig inatingin Hung ary, Poland, Russia, the CzechRepublic, Romania and the Slovak Republic.
(a) seamless pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel, of a kind used for oil and
gas pipelines, of an external diameter not exceeding 406,4 mm(currently fallingwithin CN codes 7304 10 10 and 7304 10 30);
(b) seamless tubes of circular cross-section, of iron or non-alloy steel,
cold-drawn or cold-rolled, other than precision tubes (currentlyfallingwithin CN code 7304 31 99);
(c) other tubes of circular cross-section, of iron or non-alloy steel, other
than threaded or threadable, of an external diameter not exceeding406,4 mm (currently fallingwithin CN codes 7304 39 91 and7304 39 93).
2. The rate of definitive anti-dumpingduties applicable to the net
free-at-Community-frontier prices before duty, shall be as follows:
Hungary Csepel Tubes Co. Ltd
(in liquidation)36,5 % 8717
Others 36,5 % 8900
Poland Huta Batory SA 7,1 % 8476
Huta Andrzej SA 30,1 % 8719
Huta Czestochowa 30,1 % 8482
Huta Jednosc SA 30,1 % 8493
Others 30,1 % 8900
▼M1
Russia Taganrog metallurgicalworks 26,8 % A039
Pervouralsky Novotrubny 26,8 % A040
Chelyabinsk tube-rollingplant 26,8 % A041
Others 26,8 % A999
▼B
Czech Republic Vítkovice a.s. 5,1 % 8058
Nová Hut a.s. 5,1 % 8463
Válcovny trub Chomutova.s. 28,6 % 8464
Others 28,6 % 8900
Romania Artrom SA 9,8 % 8059
Silcotub SA 9,8 % 8467
Petrotub SA 9,8 % 8468
Republica SA 9,8 % 8469
Others 38,2 % 8900
Slovak Republic Železiarne Podbrezováa.s. 7,5 % 8060
Others 7,5 % 8900
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning
customs duties shall apply.
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 31
▼B
Country Product manufacturerTaric addi-
tional CodeArticle 2
1. Imports shall be exempt from the anti-dumpingduties imposed by
Article 1 (1) provided that they are produced and sold for export to theCommunity by the companies listed in paragraph 4 which have offeredundertakings accepted by the Commission and provided that the condi-tions of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are met.
2. When the declaration for release for free circulation is presented,
exemption from the duty shall be conditional upon presentation to thecompetent Member States’ customs services of a valid, original produc-tion certificate issued by one of the companies listed in paragraph 4.The production certificate shall conform with the requirements for suchcertificates set out in the undertakingaccepted by the Commission, theessential elements of which are listed in the Annex.
3. The production certificate referred to in paragraph 2 must be
presented within three months of its date of issue. The quantitiespresented to the Member States’ customs services for import into theCommunity free of the anti-dumpingduty shall not exceed those stipu-lated on the certificate. When quantities stipulated on the certificate areexceeded, the excess shall be subject to the duty, and be declared underthe relevant Taric additional code of Article 1 (2).
4. Imports accompanied by a production certificate shall be declared
under the followingTaric additional codes:
Hungary Csepel Tubes Co. Ltd
(in liquidation)8521
Poland Huta Batory SA 8517
Huta Andrzej SA 8518
Huta Czestochowa 8519
Huta Jednosc SA 8520
Czech Republic Válcovny trub Chomutov a.s. 8507
Romania Artrom SA 8508
Silcotub SA 8509
Petrotub SA 8514
Republica SA 8515
Slovak Republic Železiarne Podbrezová a.s. 8516
▼M1
Russia Taganrog metallurgical works A042
Pervouralsky Novotrubny A043
Chelyabinsk tube-rollingplant A044
▼B
Article 3
Member States’ reports to the Commission pursuant to Article 14 (6) of
Regulation (EC) No 384/96, shall indicate for each release for freecirculation, the year and month of import, the CN, Taric and Taricadditional codes, the type of measure, the country of origin, thequantity, the value, the anti-dumpingduty, the Member State of importand, where appropriate, the serial number of the production certificate.
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 32
▼B
Article 4
Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 is hereby repealed.
Article 5
The anti-dumpingproceedingag ainst imports of the product concerned
originating in Croatia is hereby terminated.
Article 6
The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumpingduties
imposed pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 981/97 on imports of theproduct concerned originating in Russia, the Czech Republic, Romaniaand the Slovak Republic shall be released.
Article 7
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its
publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities .
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in
all Member States.
1997R2320 — EN — 29.01.2000 — 001.001 — 33
▼B
ANNEX
Main elements of the production certificate (1)referred to in Article 2 (2)
(a) The number of the certificate.
(b) Identification showingwhether the certificate is an orig inal.
(c) The date of expiry of the certificate.
(d) The followingtext:
‘Production certificate issued by (the Company) pursuant to Article 2 (2) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 for the export to the EuropeanCommunity within Taric additional Code xxxx of certain seamless steelpipes and tubes.'
(e) The name and full address of the Company, and possible identification
number such as national registration number for incorporated companies.
(f) The name and full address of the customer of the Company in the
Community importingthe g oods orthe name and full address of the unre-
lated trader outside the Community exportingthe g oods.
(g) The number of the Company invoice to which the production certificate
relates.
(h) The exact description of the goods, including:
— a product description sufficient to identify the products, which will be
identical to the product description on the invoice,
— CN code,— quantity (in metric tonnes).
(i) The name of the official of the Company responsible for the issue of the
certificate and the followingsig ned declaration:
‘I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for export to the European
Community of the goods covered by this certificate is being made within thescope and under the terms of the undertakingby (the Company), and withinthe permitted volume for anti-dumpingduty-free imports into theCommunity set out in the undertakingaccepted by the Commission pursuantto Decision 97/790/EC. I declare that the information provided in thiscertificate is complete and correct.'
(j) Space for use by the competent authorities of the Community.
(1) Under the undertakingoffered and accepted by the Commission, each box on the
certificate will be in four languages, the language of the country of the producer,English, French and German.