2002R1697 — EN — 28.09.2002 — 000.001 — 1
This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
►B COUNCILREGULATION(EC)No1697/2002
of23September2002
imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain welded tubes and pipes, of iron or
non-alloysteeloriginatingintheCzechRepublic,Poland,Thailand,TurkeyandUkraine
(OJ L 259, 27.9.2002, p. 8)
Corrected by:
►C1Corrigendum, OJ L 351, 28.12.2002, p. 117 (1697/2002)
▼B
COUNCILREGULATION(EC)No1697/2002
of23September2002
imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain
welded tubes and pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel originating in
theCzechRepublic,Poland,Thailand,TurkeyandUkraine
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December
1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not
membersof the European Community (1) (hereinafter referred to as
the Basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after
consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A.PROVISIONALMEASURES
(1)The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 540/2002 (2) (herein-
after referred to as the Provisional Regulation), imposed a
provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain welded
tubes and pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel falling within CNcodesex 7306 30 51, ex 7306 30 59, ex 7306 30 71 andex 7306 30 78 (TARIC-codes7306 30 51 10, 7306 30 59 10,7306 30 71 10, 7306 30 71 20, 7306 30 78 10 and7306 30 78 20), originating in the Czech Republic, Poland, Thai-
land, Turkey and the Ukraine.
B.SUBSEQUENTPROCEDURE
(2)Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considera-
tions on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisionalanti-dumping measures, several interested parties made writtensubmissions making their views known on the provisional find-
ings. The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity
to be heard.
(3)The Commission services continued to seek and verify all infor-mation deemed necessary for the definitive findings.
(4)All parties were informed of the essential facts and considera-tionson the bas isof which it wasintended to recommend theimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports ofcertain welded tubes and pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel, origi-
nating in the Czech Republic, Poland, Thailand, Turkey and the
Ukraine and the definitive collection of the amountss ecured byway of the provisional duty. They were also granted a periodwithin which to make representations subsequent to the disclo-sure of the essential facts and considerations.
(5)The oral and written comments submitted by the interestedpartieswere cons idered and, where appropriate, the findings
have been modified accordingly.
C.PRODUCTCONCERNEDANDLIKEPRODUCT
(6)In the absence of any comment received after the disclosure of
the provisional findings on the product concerned and the likeproduct, the provisional findings as described in recitals 12 to15 of the Provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.2002R1697 — EN — 28.09.2002 — 000.001 — 2
(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation aslas t amended by Regulation (EC) No
2238/2000, (OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2).
(2) OJ L 83, 27.3.2002, p. 3.
▼B
D.DUMPING
Poland and Ukraine
(7)In the absence of any new argument on dumping, the provisional
findingsasdes cribed in recitals37 to 43 for Poland and 60 to 85for Ukraine of the Provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Czech Republic
(8)One Czech exporting producer, Železárny Veselí has reacted to
the Commission's provisional findings, claiming that they wereallegedly subject to higher technical testing standards for tube
types sold on the domestic market in the Czech Republic than
for the tube typesexported to the Community market. It isnotedthat thisclaim wasintroduced only at a very advanced s tage ofthe investigation, and could therefore not be checked during theon-the-spot-verification carried out at the exporter premises. In
addition, the Czech exporting producer did not bring forward
any evidence which would support his claim. Moreover, in hisreply to the Commission's questionnaire the company statedthat quite to the contrary to hispres ent claim, Czech and foreignstandards for the product concerned are comparable and that aprice comparison does not require an adjustment in that respect.
Also no other information obtained during the investigation with
regard to sales of the product concerned on the Czech marketwould suggest that justified differences in technical standardsexist. The claim had therefore to be rejected.
(9)The provisional level of dumping for this producer is herebyconfirmed.
(10)For the other Czech exporting producer, Jäkl Karvina, a substan-tiated claim for differences in physical characteristics betweenthe type of tube chosen for normal value and the type sold forexport to the Community wasmade.
(11)This claim was considered justified and the final dumpingmargin wasaccordingly recalculated at 28,3 %.
Turkey
(12)With regard to Turkey, minor correctionsconcerning daily
exchange ratesand interes t rateswere reques ted by three compa-niesand accepted where jus tified.
(13)After receiving the definitive disclosure calculations, companiesclaimed that the dumping margin should have been establishedon the basis of a comparison of weighted average normal values
with a weighted average of all export transactions to the
Community on the groundsthat exportsdid not differ s ignifi-cantly among purchasers, regions or time periods. The dumpingwas not a ‘targeted dumping’ over time by these companies, buta situation created by the devaluation of the Turkish lira inFebruary 2001, i.e. in the middle of the investigation period
(IP). The allegationsmade by the companieshave been verified
and it wasfound that the differencesin priceswere, in fact, notsignificant. Consequently, the basis of calculation has beenchanged to the above method. Thisled to a reduction in thedumping marginsof the companiesconcerned.
(14)The final dumping marginsfor the cooperating companiesincluded in the sample are:
— Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi AS, Ankara 0 %,
— Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari AS, Istanbul
►
C1and Mannesmann Boru Endüstrisi AS, ◄
Istanbul 5,0 %,
— Cayirova Boru San Ve Tic AS, Istanbul and
Yücel Boru Profil Endüstrisi AS, Istanbul 0 %,2002R1697 — EN — 28.09.2002 — 000.001 — 3
▼B
— Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret AS,
Kayseri 6,0 %.
(15)This exercise led to a revised weighted average dumping margin
of 5,2 % for the following cooperating companiesnot included
in the sample:
— BorutasBoru Sanayii ve Ticaret AS, Adapazari,
— Cinar Boru Profil San. Tic. Ltd STI, Eregli,— Guven Boru ve Profil Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sti, Istanbul,— Özdemir Boru Profil San.ve Ticaret AS, Eregli,
— Sevil Boru-Profil Sanayii ve Ticaret AS, Istanbul,
— Toscelik Profil ve Sac. Endüstrisi AS, Iskenderun,— Özborsan Boru San.ve Ticaret AS, Istanbul.
(16)The level of cooperation for Turkey washigh, and the res idual
definitive dumping margin was set at the same level as for the
highest margin level of a cooperating company, i.e. 6,0 %.
Thailand
(17)An on-the-spot investigation was carried out after publication of
the Provisional Regulation at the premises of Saha Thai SteelPipe Co. Ltd, the sole Thai cooperating exporting producer.
ThisThai producer initially replied to the ques tionnaire but had
not been in a position to accept an on-the-spot verification indue time.
Normal value
(18)Asfar asnormal value isconcerned, the general methodology
set out in recitals 17 to 24 of the Provisional Regulation for all
market economy countriesconcerned hasbeen applied for thissole cooperating Thai producer.
(19)The following describes only the findings that are specific to that
company.
(20)Normal value was established on the basis of domestic sales for
those types of the product concerned which were directlycomparable to the typesof tubesexported to the Community.
Only in those cases where there were no sales of comparable
typesof tubeson the domes tic market wasnormal valueconstructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the Basic Regula-tion. For that purpose the cooperating exporting producer's owncost of production and the company's own SG&A expenses and
profitswere us ed.
Export price
(21)The procedures and methodologies followed to assess the export
price of products originating in Thailand were the same as thoseexplained in recital 25 of the Provisional Regulation, i.e. exportsales made directly to an independent customer in the Commu-
nity were established pursuant to Article 2(8) of the Basic
Regulation.
Comparison
(22)In accordance with the methodologiesfollowed in recital 26 of
the Provisional Regulation, adjustments were made for transport,
ancillary costs (bank charges), insurance and credit costs, for
differences in physical characteristics and for duty drawback.
Dumping margin
(23)In accordance with the methodologiesfollowed in recital 27 of
the Provisional Regulation, the comparison between the normalvalue and the export price on a weighted to weighted average2002R1697 — EN — 28.09.2002 — 000.001 — 4
▼B
basis was applied and this method showed the existence of
dumping in respect of the sole cooperating exporting producer.
(24)The definitive dumping margin expressed as a percentage of thecif import price at the Community border for thiscompany is :
Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co. Ltd 21,7 %
(25)With regard to the determination of the residual duty, as the
level of cooperation for Thailand wasvery low, the methodologydescribed in recitals 28 and 48 of the Provisional Regulation ishereby confirmed. The residual dumping margin expressed as a
percentage of the cif import price at the Community border is
37,6 %.
E.COMMUNITYINDUSTRY
(26)In the absence of any new argument on the Community produc-
tion and on the definition of the Community industry, theprovisional findings as described in recitals 83 to 85 of theProvisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
F.INJURY
1.Communityconsumption
(27)In the absence of any comment received after the disclosure of
the provisional findings on the Community consumption, theprovisional findings as described in recitals 86 to 88 of the
Provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
2.Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports
concerned
(28)It wasargued that in line with previouspractice (1), importsfrom
the Czech Republic should not be cumulated with imports origi-nating in the other countriesconcerned asthe evolution ofimportsand pricesof the Czech Republic during the periodconsidered diverged from the evolutions observed for the other
countriesconcerned. Secondly, it wasargued that Czech imports
do not undercut Community industry's prices and are not incompetition with importsfrom the other inves tigated countriesas, unlike them, they are destined for Germany.
(29)It should be noted that in the cases referred to, the diverging
trends of imports and prices were not in themselves decisive
but only one element which was considered. The conclusions tocumulate or decumulate were based on a number of otherfactors. What is important are the conditions listed in Article3(4) of the Basic Regulation (margin of dumping more than de
minimis , volume of importsnot negligible and s ame conditions
of competition between imported productsand the conditionsof
competition between the imported productsand the like Commu-nity product).
(30)Firstly, it should be noted that the dumping margin of Czech
importswasabove de minimis .
(31)Secondly, although importsoriginating in the Czech Republic
decreased constantly since 1998, the volume of imports duringthe IP wasnot negligible. Moreover, it s hould be noted thatalthough according to Eurostat average prices of imports origi-
nating in the Czech Republic increased constantly since 1999,
they were found substantially to undercut Community industry'spricesin the IP, aswere importsoriginating in the other inves ti-2002R1697 — EN — 28.09.2002 — 000.001 — 5
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 concerning urea ammonium nitrate
solution originating in Bulgaria and Poland (OJ L 350, 31.12.1994, p. 20)
and Council Regulation (EC) No 2022/95 concerning ammonium nitrate
originating in Russia (OJ L 198, 23.8.1995, p. 1).
▼B
gated countries. In this respect it should be noted that as within
the product concerned different modelswith different pricesexist, the calculations were carried out for comparable models
of the product concerned at the same level of trade, in order
fully to reflect the price behaviour of the countriesconcerned.
(32)Thirdly, contrary to the submission by Czech exporters, cumula-tion isappropriate in the light of the conditionsof competition.In this respect, it should be noted that imports from the CzechRepublic are interchangeable with other importsand with s ales
by the Community industry. They are marketed in the Commu-
nity through comparable sales channels. It has been found thatthe Community indus try aswell asexporterss ituated in all theinvestigated countries are all in part selling to Germany. More-over, Eurostat statistics show that trade flows among Member
Statesare important, thisindicating that the market isCommu-
nity wide. No other indication that Czech sales of the productconcerned were not in competition with sales originating in theother investigated countries and with sales of the Communityindustry has been found. Accordingly, there is no indication ofa regionalisation of the market.
(33)Czech exporters also argued against cumulating on the basis of
an alleged market segmentation. It was argued that the alleged
segmentation of the Community market was evidenced by theinfringement of European competition law by two companiescomposing the Community industry. These two companies inthe past made an illegal agreement on market sharing, albeit for
a product other than the product concerned.
(34)However, the mere fact that two companiesinfringed the compe-
tition law prior to the IP, for a product different from the productconcerned cannot, in the absence of any other indicationconcerning such behaviour during the IP and for the productconcerned, be considered as a proof of the market segmentation
in the present case. During the present investigation, no evidence
was found that would show that such an agreement was in forcefor the product concerned for any of the companiescompos ingthe Community industry. This argument is therefore rejected.
(35)Some exportersreiterated the reques t that importsoriginating inthe Czech Republic should be decumulated as they are notcausing injury or any threat of injury to the Community industry
due to their volume being below the ceiling quota imposed by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1968/93 (
1). Czech exportersals o
argued in favour of decumulation pointing to the increase ofCommunity exportsto the Czech Republic during the periodconsidered. It should be noted that the quota imposed by Regula-
tion (EEC) No 1968/93 wasin force only until the end of 1995
and that in the present investigation the period considered for theinjury analysis is 1997 to the IP. Furthermore, the level ofCommunity exportsto the Czech Republic ass uch provide nosupport to the claim that Czech exports should be decumulated.This submission is therefore rejected.
(36)It wasargued that asthe Czech Republic wass ubject to thesurveillance of exports under the double-checking system estab-lished by Council Regulation (EC) No 87/98 (
2), it should be
excluded from the present anti dumping proceeding. However,the surveillance system is in place purely in order to monitorCzech imports. The mere fact of its existence does thus not
give any indication either in favour or against cumulating.
Accordingly it cannot support a claim for decumulation. Thisargument istherefore rejected.2002R1697 — EN — 28.09.2002 — 000.001 — 6
(1) OJ L 180, 23.7.1993, p. 1. Regulation aslas t amended by Regulation (EC)
No 1005/95 (OJ L 101, 4.5.1995, p. 35).
(2) OJ L 13, 19.1.98, p. 43. Regulation aslas t amended by Council Regulation
(EC) No 844/2002, (OJ L 135, 23.5.2002, p. 1).
▼B
(37)Some exportersreiterated the claim that they operate under
different conditions of competition either because their sales to
the Community were made through a related company unlikesales of the other exporting producers or because they operatedwithout immediate access to raw materials and had consequentlylonger delivery times.
(38)The investigation showed that sales made by these exporters tothe Community of the product concerned were mainly madethrough sales channels comparable both to the ones used byother exporters , and aswell asthe onesof the Community
industry (i.e. traders). In any event, the conditions of competition
within the meaning of Article 3(4) of the Basic Regulation areestablished on a country-wide basis and not examined for eachindividual exporter. These submissions are therefore rejected.
(39)It was also argued that imports from Ukraine should not becumulated with importsoriginating in the other countriesconcerned given the low volume of importsinvolved.
(40)In this respect it is stressed that even if Ukraine's market sharewas lower than the ones held by the other investigated countries,it cannot be considered as negligible as defined in Article 5(7) ofthe Basic Regulation and Article 5(8) of the Agreement onimplementation of Article VI of the of the General Agreement
on Tariffsand Trade 1994. Furthermore, all the other conditions
for cumulation as set out in Article 3(4) of the Basic Regulationwere met.
(41)In view of the above, asthere were no new factss howing thatthe conditionsfor cumulation for the countriesconcerned werenot met, the provisional findings concerning the cumulativeassessment of the effects of the imports concerned, as describedin recitals89 to 97 of the Provis ional Regulation, are herebyconfirmed.
3.Importsoriginatinginthecountriesconcerned
(i)Volume, market share, price evolution
(42)In the absence of any new argument, the provisional findings
concerning the volume, the market share and the price evolutionof the importsoriginating in the countriesconcerned, asdescribed in recitals 98 to 104 of the Provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.
(43)It should be noted that after the publication of the Provisional
Regulation, two additional Turkish companies were found not
to have dumped. If the importsfrom thes e exporting producers
were excluded, the increase in volume of dumped imports wouldremain significant, as shown in the table below, namely anincrease of 20 %. The market share of the remaining dumpedimportsincreas ed by 5,9 percentage pointsduring the periodconsidered. The dumped imports still represented more than
24 % of the Community market during the IP.
Dumped imports1997 1998 1999 2000 IP
Volume (tonnes) 161 759 192 989 168 406 222 489 193 963
Index: 1997 = 100 100 119 104 138 120
Market share 18,2 % 22,2 % 19,9 % 25,6 % 24,1 %
(ii)Price undercutting
(44)Concerning importsoriginating in Turkey, it isconfirmed that
the level of undercutting found wason average 14,0 %. It hasbeen established that if the imports from exporting producers2002R1697 — EN — 28.09.2002 — 000.001 — 7
▼B
found not to have dumped are excluded, thiswould not s ignifi-
cantly alter the level of undercutting.
(45)In respect of imports originating in the Czech Republic, it wasargued that a comparison of Czech export prices either as shownin Eurostat statistics or in some individually selected cases, withthe Community industry's ones, would not show any undercut-ting. It wastherefore reques ted that the undercutting calculation
should be revised accordingly.
(46)According to normal practice, in order to calculate the price
undercutting, verified average Community industry's and averageexporters' prices were compared for the whole IP on a producttype by product type basis and at the same level of trade. This
comparison did show undercutting, and accordingly, this argu-
ment had to be rejected.
(47)It was argued that, as Eurostat statistics indicate lower prices inGermany than in the other Member States, the undercuttingcalculation should be performed comparing prices of the
exporting producerswith the pricescharged by the Community
industry in each Member State.
(48)In this respect it should be noted that the Community is consid-ered as one single market for the purpose of anti-dumping
investigations and it is normal practice that, in order fully to
reflect the undercutting level, the undercutting calculation ismade comparing the pricesof each exporting producer to theaverage pricesof the Community indus try asa whole. In addi-tion, it should be noted that sales of the product concerned aremainly made through traders who then sell to their customers
that can be located in any part of the Community market. The
Eurostat statistics confirm this, showing as they do an importantlevel of intra-Community trade.
(49)The Thai cooperating exporter claimed that in order to comparethe product concerned at the same level of trade as that of the
Community industry, an adjustment of 10 % should be made to
the cif value of the imported goodsin order to reflect the impor-ters' SG&A and profits.
(50)It should be noted that the prices of the imported product
concerned have been increased by EUR 10 per tonne in order
to reflect the costs that importers incur after importation. BothCommunity industry and exporters are mainly selling to equaltypes of customers, namely importing traders who then sell theproduct to the users. Accordingly, should exporters' prices beincreased as requested, they would effectively represent prices
at a different level of trade from the onesof the Community
industry. In addition, no backing evidence has been provided tosupport the request. The request is therefore rejected.
(51)In the absence of any new element concerning the methodologyused for the undercutting calculation and taking into account the
correction of clerical errors, the products concerned originating
in the countriesconcerned were s old in the Community in theIP at priceswhich on average undercut the Community indus try'sprices, when expressed as a percentage of the latter, as follows:the Czech Republic 14,8 %, Poland 14,5 %, Thailand 21,4 %,
Turkey 14,0 % and Ukraine 33,0 %.
4.SituationoftheCommunityindustry
(52)In the absence of any new information affecting the findings of
the situation of the Community industry, the provisional findingsas described in recitals 107 to 139 of the Provisional Regulationare hereby confirmed.
5.Conclusiononinjury
(53)In the absence of any new information on the situation of the
Community industry, the provisional findings on the injurysuffered by the Community industry as described in recitals 1402002R1697 — EN — 28.09.2002 — 000.001 — 8
▼B
to 142 of the Provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed, with
the exception of the average level of undercutting indicated inrecital 140 which hasbeen revis ed to 16,6 %.
G.CAUSATION
(54)No interested parties presented new arguments or evidence on
causation. Nevertheless, the effects on the injury suffered by theCommunity industry by the impact of trade protective measuresimposed by third countries and by imports originating in otherthird countrieswere further inves tigated.
(55)Concerning the trade protective measures imposed by third coun-tries, it was found that even had the level of total exports of theCommunity industry remained stable at 1997 level, the decreasein production and in the capacity utilisation of the Communityindustry between 1997 and the IP would nevertheless have
remained substantial. This is due to the minor part played by
exports compared to total sales. Whilst exports to all countries(i.e. not only to the oneshaving impos ed trade protectivemeasures) declined between 1997 and the IP, this was onlyfrom about 9,5 % of total Community sales in 1997 to about8 % in the IP. Accordingly, the impact of the trade protective
measures imposed by third countries was negligible. In addition,
stable exports would not have changed the decreasing trend inprofitability.
(56)Concerning importsoriginating in Romania and Hungary and
non-dumped importsoriginating in Turkey, it wasfound that in
termsof volumesthey cumulatively decreas ed by 25 % between1997 and the IP. Thisnegative trend iss imilar to the oneobserved for sales by the Community industry to unrelatedcustomers, which decreased by 17 %. It is also opposite to theincrease by 20 % in dumped imports originating in the five
investigated countries. In conclusion, the decreasing trend of the
volume of these imports and the low market shares involvedconfirm that these imports do not alter the findings on causation.
(57)In the light of the above, the findingsof the Provis ional Regula-
tion asdes cribed in recitals143 to 168 are hereby confirmed.
H.COMMUNITYINTEREST
(58)Following the imposition of the provisional measures, the only
commentsreceived on Community interes tswere provided bythe Community industry which supported the Commission'sprovisional conclusions that the imposition of any anti-dumpingmeasure is not likely to cause a considerable increase in users'
costs or seriously affect their situation. It should be noted that
the main user of the product concerned is the constructionindustry and that for these users the cost of laying, installingand maintaining the conduits, as linked to the cost of manpower,is much more important than the cost of tubes themselves. Inaddition, the cost of the installed piping itself is a very small
part of the total housing construction cost.
(59)It should also be noted that as the product concerned is mainly
sold in the market through traders, prices that end-users will beactually charged will depend on traders' pricing policy.
(60)In view of the above and in the absence of any new informationon the analysis of the Community interest aspects of the caseand in particular in the absence of cooperation or reactionsfrom users, the provisional findings as described in recitals 169to 196 of the Provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.2002R1697 — EN — 28.09.2002 — 000.001 — 9
▼B
(61)It was argued that the present anti-dumping proceeding should
be terminated in order to avoid a higher level of protection than
what is deemed to be necessary as the product concerned isincluded in the scope of the safeguard investigation initiated on28 March 2002 (
1).
(62)The product concerned isindeed covered by the s cope of the
safeguard investigation. It should be noted, however, that it is
not subject to provisional safeguard measures. Should theCommission propose the adoption of any definitive safeguardmeasures in respect of this product, it will also consider whetherthe combination of different types of measure could give rise to
a higher level of protection than is necessary, and whether the
anti-dumping duty should be amended accordingly. Interestedparties will be given an opportunity to comment on this issue.
I.DEFINITIVEANTI-DUMPINGMEASURES
1.Injuryeliminationlevel
(63)Some exportershave argued that the methodology us ed at the
provisional stage for establishing the non-injurious prices leadto artificially inflated prices. It was thus requested that the meth-odology be reviewed.
(64)The methodology used at the provisional stage to establish non-injuriouspricesper model and per level of trade involved thefollowing:
— to establish the break even point, the weighted average actual
sales prices charged by each Community industry companywasadjus ted upward or downward according to itsactual
loss or profits,
— to that break even point, a profit margin of 5 % wasadded.
At the definitive stage, the methodology was reviewed and the
non-injuriouspricesper model and per level of trade were calcu-
lated asfollows :
— to establish the break even point, the weighted average actual
sales prices charged by each Community industry companywas adjusted downward according to the Community indus-try'saverage actual profit,
— to that break even point, a profit margin of 5 % wasadded.
(65)It should also be noted that by using the profits of the Commu-
nity industry on a weighted average basis as was done at the
definitive stage, the situation of the Community industry intermsof prices , profitability and quantitiesinvolved isfullyreflected.
(66)It wasals o argued that the reviewed methodology led for certain
models to discrepancies between cost of production and non-
injurious prices. In this respect it should be noted that as thenon-injuriouspricesare bas ed on actual pricesof the Communityindustry they also reflect the market situation of each model.Consequently, this methodology allows a fair comparison ofprices.
(67)Furthermore, the correction of clerical errorsmade in the contextof the price undercutting calculationshasbeen als o applied tothe injury margin calculation.
(68)Given the cooperation of only one Thai company at the defini-tive stage and the low level of cooperation for Thailand and inorder not to give a bonusfor non cooperation, according toArticle 18(6) of the Basic Regulation, the residual injury marginfor Thailand has been established on the basis of Eurostat infor-mation.2002R1697 — EN — 28.09.2002 — 000.001 — 10
(1) OJ C 77, 28.3.2002, p. 39.
▼B
(69)The revised injury elimination margins found were as follows:
Country Company Injury margin
Turkey Yücel Boru Profil Endüstrisi AS. 27,8 %
Cayirova Boru San Ve Tic AS. 27,8 %
►C1Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari AS. ◄ 20,3 %
►C1Mannesmann Boru Endüstrisi AS. ◄ 20,3 %
Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi AS. 17,2 %Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret AS. 10,9 %
Non-sampled cooperating companies:
— BorutasBoru Sanayii ve Ticaret AS. 22,3 %— Cinar Boru Profil San. Tic. Ltd STI 22,3 %— Guven Boru ve Profil Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd
Sti.22,3 %
— Özdemir Boru Profil San.ve Ticaret AS. 22,3 %
— Sevil Boru-Profil Sanayii ve Ticaret AS. 22,3 %
— Toscelik Profil ve Sac. Endüstrisi AS. 22,3 %
— Özborsan San.ve Ticaret AS. 22,3 %All other companies27,8 %
Czech Republic Jäkl Karvina 17,9 %
Železárny Veselí as. 52,6 %
All other companies52,6 %
Poland Huta Buczek 0,0 %
All other companies23,0 %
Ukraine OJSC Nihnedeneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant 56,2 %
All other companies56,6 %
Thailand Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co. Ltd 33,8 %
All other companies35,2 %
2.Definitiveanti-dumpingmeasures
(70)It was argued that any measure should not exceed the difference
between the target profit margin and the profit obtained by theCommunity industry during the IP. The target profit margin of
5 % of turnover which the Community industry could be
expected to obtain in the absence of injurious dumping wasestablished in recital 199 of the Provisional Regulation.
(71)It should be noted that duties are imposed for each cooperatingcompany and each investigated country following the lesser dutyrule. It should also be noted that the methodology used in orderto determine the non-injuriouspricesfor the Communityindustry reflects the found target profit of 5 % but that it is the2002R1697 — EN — 28.09.2002 — 000.001 — 11
▼B
difference between the actual level of pricescharged by the
exportersand the non-injuriouspricesof the Communityindustry which determines the level of injury found. The request
istherefore rejected.
(72)In the light of the foregoing, it iscons idered that, in accordance
with Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation, a definitive anti-
dumping duty should be imposed in respect of imports origi-
nating in the Czech Republic, Poland, Thailand, Turkey andUkraine at the level of the dumping marginsfound, or at thelevel of the injury marginsfound, where thes e are lower.
(73)On the basis of the above, the proposed definitive duty rates,expressed as a percentage of the cif Community border price,before duty, are asfollows :
Country Company Level of duty
Turkey Yücel Boru Profil Endüstrisi AS. 0,0 %
Cayirova Boru San Ve Tic AS. 0,0 %►
C1Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari AS. ◄ 5,0 %
►C1Mannesmann Boru Endüstrisi AS. ◄ 5,0 %
Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi AS. 0,0 %Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret AS. 6,0 %Non-sampled cooperating companies
— BorutasBoru Sanayii ve Ticaret AS. 5,2 %
— Cinar Boru Profil San. Tic. Ltd STI 5,2 %— Guven Boru ve Profil Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd
Sti.5,2 %
— Özdemir Boru Profil San.ve Ticaret AS. 5,2 %
— Sevil Boru-Profil Sanayii ve Ticaret AS. 5,2 %— Toscelik Profil ve Sac. Endüstrisi AS. 5,2 %
— Özborsan San.ve Ticaret AS. 5,2 %
All other companies6,0 %
Czech Republic Jäkl Karvina 17,9 %
All other companies52,6 %
Poland Huta Buczek 0,0 %
All other companies23,0 %
Ukraine OJSC Nihnedeneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant 30,9 %
All other companies44,1 %
Thailand Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co. Ltd 21,7 %
All other companies35,2 %
(74)
The individual company anti-dumping duty ratess pecified in this
Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of thepresent investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found2002R1697 — EN — 28.09.2002 — 000.001 — 12
▼B
during that investigation with respect to these companies. These
duty rates(asoppos ed to the country-wide duty applicable to ‘allother companies’) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of
productsoriginating in the country concerned and produced by
the companiesand thusby the s pecific legal entitiesmentioned.Imported productsproduced by any other company not s pecifi-cally mentioned in the operative part of thisRegulation with itsname and address, including entities related to those specifically
mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject
to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.
(75)Any claim requesting the application of these individualcompany anti-dumping duty rates(e.g. following a change inthe name of the entity or following the setting up of new produc-tion or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (
1)
forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modifi-
cation in the company'sactivitieslinked to production, domes ticand export sales associated with e.g. that name change or thatchange in the production and sales entities. The Commission, ifappropriate, will, after consultation of the Advisory Committee,amend the Regulation accordingly by updating the list of compa-
niesbenefiting from individual duty rates .
3.Undertaking
(76)After provisional measures had been imposed, a number of
exporting producers, namely Jäkl Karvina and Železárny Veselíin the Czech Republic, Saha Thai in Thailand and
►
C1Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari AS/Mannesmann Boru
Endüstrisi AS ◄in Turkey, offered price undertakingsin accor-
dance with Article 8(1) of the Basic Regulation.
(77)In this respect, the Commission has noted that:
— the product concerned isa commodity product with a cons id-
erable volatility in priceseven in the very s hort term, andtherefore not very suitable for a fixed price undertaking,
— the volatility isdue to the variation in pricesof raw mate-
rials, namely hot rolled coils and zinc, which constitute
major but variable componentsof the cos t of production.This is also linked to currency exchanges rates, which arestable within the Community except for the United Kingdom,Sweden and Denmark, but fast changing with regard to the
USD, the currency in which the transactions are made, espe-
cially in Thailand and Turkey. A monthly revision of priceswould be necessary,
— if the MIPs(minimum import prices ) were indexed to the
price of hot rolled coilsand zinc, different indexing formulae
would have to be established by sub-product group, since the
energy and manpower per tonne vary between sizes. For thisreason, should a review formula system be implemented, itwould be necessary to establish between 3 and 4 sub-formulae for each category of product according to the size
range.
(78)Moreover, some of the producers who offered price undertakings
export a variety of steel products such as welded tubes, structuralpipes, carbon steel tubes, square tubing, rectangular tubing, etc.,which are only partially subject to the anti-dumping investiga-tion. The risk of compensation in prices for the differentproducts exported to the same customers is therefore high. On a
general basis, the Community industry also claimed that under-
takings, and thus minimum prices, would clearly not beappropriate measures with regard to the product concerned for2002R1697 — EN — 28.09.2002 — 000.001 — 13
(1) European Commission
Directorate-General Trade
Directorate B
B-1049 Brussels.
▼B
the same reasons. In light of the above, these offers of price
undertakingswere rejected.
4.Definitivecollection ofprovisionalduties
(79)In view of the magnitude of the dumping marginsfound and in
the light of the level of the injury caused to the Communityindustry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured byway of the provisional anti-dumping duty, imposed by the Provi-
sional Regulation, should be definitively collected at the rate of
the duty definitively imposed,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty ishereby impos ed on importsof
welded tubes and pipes of iron or non-alloy steel, of circular cross-section and of an external diameter not exceeding 168,3 mm, excludingtubes and pipes of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines, of a kind used in
drilling for oil or gas, or with attached fittings for use in civil aircraft,
other than precision tubes, falling within CN codes ex 7306 30 51,ex 7306 30 59, ex 7306 30 71, and ex 7306 30 78 (TARIC-codes7306 30 51*10, 7306 30 59*10, 7306 30 71*91, 7306 30 78*91), andoriginating in the Czech Republic, Poland, Thailand, Turkey andUkraine.
2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net-
at-Community-frontier price, before duty, for the productsdes cribed in
paragraph 1 and produced by the following companiess hall be asfollows:
Country Company Rate of dutyTARIC additional
code
Turkey Yücel Boru Profil Endüstrisi AS. 0,0 % A330
Cayirova Boru San Ve Tic AS. 0,0 % A331
►C1Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari
AS.◄5,0 % A332
►C1Mannesmann Boru Endüstrisi
AS.◄5,0 % A333
Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi AS. 0,0 % ►C1A334◄
Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret
AS.6,0 % A335
Non-sampled cooperating companies:
— BorutasBoru Sanayii ve Ticaret AS. 5,2 % A336— Cinar Boru Profil San. Tic. Ltd STI 5,2 % A337
— Guven Boru ve Profil Sanayi ve
Ticaret Ltd Sti.5,2 % A338
— Özdemir Boru Profil San.ve Ticaret
AS.5,2 % A339
— Sevil Boru-Profil Sanayii ve Ticaret
AS.5,2 % A340
— Toscelik Profil ve Sac. Endüstrisi AS. 5,2 % A341
— Özborsan San.ve Ticaret AS. 5,2 % A3422002R1697 — EN — 28.09.2002 — 000.001 — 14
▼B
Country Company Rate of dutyTARIC additional
code
All other companies6,0 % A999
Czech Republic Jäkl Karvina 17,9 % A343
All other companies52,6 % A999
Poland Huta Buczek 0,0 % A344
All other companies23,0 % A999
Ukraine OJSC Nizhnedeneprovsky Tube Rolling
Plant30,9 % A345
All other companies44,1 % A999
Thailand Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co. Ltd 21,7 % A405
All other companies35,2 % A999
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning
customs duties shall apply.
Article 2
The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty
imposed pursuant to the Provisional Regulation shall be definitivelycollected at the rate of the dutiess et out in Article 1, or at the rate ofthe provisional duty where this is lower. The amounts secured in
excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties shall be released.
Article 3
Where any Turkish party provides sufficient evidence to the Commis-
sion that it did not export the goods described in Article 1(1) during the
IP, that it isnot related to any exporter or producer s ubject to themeasures imposed by this Regulation and that it has exported the goodsconcerned after the IP, or that it hasentered into an irrevocablecontractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Commu-nity, the Council, acting by simple majority on a proposal submitted
by the Commission, after consulting the Advisory Committee, may
amend Article 1(2) in order to attribute to that party the duty applicableto cooperating producers/exporters not in the sample, i.e. 5,2 %.
Article 4
ThisRegulation s hall enter into force on the day following that of its
publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities .
ThisRegulation s hall be binding in itsentirety and directly applicable
in all Member States.2002R1697 — EN — 28.09.2002 — 000.001 — 15