2002R1514 — EN — 25.08.2002 — 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)No1514/2002
of19August2002
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed
on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel originating in the Czech Republic,
Malaysia,Russia,theRepublicofKorea andSlovakia
(OJ L 228, 24.8.2002, p. 1)
Corrected by:
►C1Corrigendum, OJ L 351, 28.12.2002, p. 116 (1514/2002)
►C2Corrigendum, OJ L 53, 28.2.2003, p. 65 (1514/2002)
▼B
COUNCILREGULATION(EC)No1514/2002
of19August2002
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively
the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain tube and pipefittings, of iron or steel originating in the Czech Republic,
Malaysia,Russia,theRepublicofKoreaandSlovakia
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 notmembers of the European Community (
1), 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 358/2002 (2) (the
‘provisional Regulation’), imposed a provisional anti-dumpingduty on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings (TPFs), of ironor steel, falling within CN codes ex 7307 9311, ex 7307 9319,
ex 7307 9930 and ex 7307 99 90, originating in the Czech
Republic, Malaysia, Russia, the Republic of Korea and Slovakia.
(2)It is recalled that the investigation period of dumping and injury
covered the period from 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001 (‘IP’).
The examination of trends relevant for the injury analysiscovered the period from 1 January 1996 to 31 March 2001(‘period under consideration’).
B.SUBSEQUENTPROCEDURE
(3)Following the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties on
imports of certain tube and pipe fittings originating in the CzechRepublic, Malaysia, Russia, the Republic of Korea and Slovakia,some interested parties submitted comments in writing. Theparties who so requested were also granted an opportunity to be
heard orally.
(4)The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it
deemed necessary for its definitive findings.
(5)All parties were informed of the essential facts and considera-tions on the basis of which it was intended to recommend theimposition of definitive anti-dumping duties and the definitivecollection of amounts secured by way of provisional duties.
They were also granted a period within which they could make
representations subsequent to this disclosure.
(6)The oral and written comments submitted by the parties wereconsidered, and, where appropriate, the provisional findings
have been modified accordingly.
C.PRODUCTCONCERNEDANDLIKEPRODUCT
(7)In the absence of any comments, the product description and the
definition of the like product as set out in recitals 9 to 12 of theprovisional Regulation are confirmed.2002R1514 — EN — 25.08.2002 — 000.001 — 2
(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No
2238/2000 (OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2).
(2) OJ L 56, 27.2.2002, p. 4.
▼B
D.DUMPING
1.General methodology
(8)In the absence of any comments, the general methodology for
establishing the dumping margins as set out in recitals 15 to 28of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.
2.Dumpingmargins
(9)In the absence of any comments, the determination of the normal
value, the export price and the comparison for the Czech
Republic, Malaysia, Republic of Korea, Slovakia and the deter-mination of the market economy status and analogue country forRussia, as described in recitals 29 to 60 of the provisional Regu-lation, are confirmed.
(10)The definitive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of
the CIF import price at the Community border, are confirmed
as follows:
Country CompanyDumping
margin
(%)
CzechRepublic Mavet a.s., Trebic 17,6
Bovex s.r.o. 22,4
Malaysia Anggerik Laksana Sdn
Bhd59,2
Republic of Korea 83,9
Slovakia Bohus s.r.o. 7,7
Zeleziarne Podbrezova
a.s.15,0
Russia 43,3
E.COMMUNITYINDUSTRY
(11)In the absence of any comments, the provisional findings
concerning the determination of the Community industry as
described in recitals 61 to 62 of the provisional Regulation are
confirmed.
F.INJURY
1.Communityconsumption
(12)In the absence of any new information, the provisional findings
concerning the Community consumption as described in recitals63 to 64 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
2.Importsfromthecountriesconcerned
Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned,
volume,marketshareandpricesofthe importsconcerned
(13)The provisional Regulation concluded that the imports origi-nating in the countries concerned should be assessed
cumulatively since the criteria set out in the Article 3(4) of the
basic Regulation were met. Indeed, the dumping margins foundfor all the countries concerned were more than de minimis ,t he
volume of imports were not negligible and the cumulativeassessment was considered appropriate in view of the conditionsof competition both between the imports and between the2002R1514 — EN — 25.08.2002 — 000.001 — 3
▼B
imports and the like Community product. These similar condi-
tions of competition were evidenced by the fact that theimported TPFs and those of the Community industry were alike
and distributed via the same trade channels under similar
commercial conditions. Moreover, all import volumes weresubstantial and resulting in significant market shares, whichincreased between 1996 and the IP, and were made at pricessignificantly undercutting the prices of the Community industry
thus leading to a price depression of the Community industry's
prices.
(14)In the absence of any comments under these headings, the provi-sional findings as described in recitals 65 to 67 of theprovisional Regulation are confirmed.
Priceundercutting
(15)One Slovak exporting producer questioned the methodology used
by the Commission for the calculation of the price undercuttingmargins. This relates more specifically to the method of the so-called ‘zeroing’, by which the positive margins for the models
that are overcutting are disregarded. This argument is based on
the conclusions reached by the WTO Appellate Body in the bedlinen case (
1) by which, on the facts of the case concerned, the
practice of zeroing when establishing the existence of marginsof dumping, which in that case was established by a comparison
of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average
export price as established by the Commission, was found to beinconsistent with the Article 2.4.2 of the WTO Anti-DumpingAgreement.
(16)Accordingly, it should be noted that the WTO Appellate Body inany event exclusively examined the practice of ‘zeroing’ when
used to establishth e existence of dumping margins. In addition,
the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement does not set out any metho-dological requirements for the calculation of price undercutting.
(17)In any event, in the current case, in view of the very few modelsfor which no undercutting was found, the application of the
‘zeroing’ methodology does not lead to significantly different
results, the difference between applying zeroing or notamounting to less than 1 %. In other words the undercuttingmargins would remain significant even if no zeroing wasapplied. The argument had therefore to be rejected.
(18)The Community industry argued that no adjustment for level of
trade should be made in order to establish the price undercutting
margin. Indeed, both the exporting producers and the Commu-nity industry supply the same category of customers, andtherefore act on the same level of trade. It was further claimedthat consequently only an adjustment covering customs clearancecost was justified.
(19)A further analysis of the information available established thatboth the Community industry and the exporting producers gener-ally supply the same type of customers in the Community, i.e.wholesalers. This was also supported by the fact that the threecooperating unrelated importers, whose activity is the one of
wholesalers, were supplied by both the Community industry and
the exporting producers from the countries concerned. The argu-ment was therefore accepted and the undercutting marginsrevised accordingly. The revised adjustment was limited to anamount covering exclusively the customs clearance costs, onthe basis of the information provided by the cooperating unre-
lated importers.
(20)The Community industry further questioned the level of the
undercutting margin calculated for one of the Slovak exporting2002R1514 — EN — 25.08.2002 — 000.001 — 4
(1) European Communities: Anti-dumping duties on imports of cotton-type bed
linen from India, WT/DS/AB/R, 1.3.2001.
▼B
producers. It was argued that this level of undercutting was
inconsistent withth e average price level as given by interna-tional trade statistics as well as market information.
(21)The calculations of the price undercutting margins were accord-ingly reviewed, and a clerical error was found in the calculationof the export price used for the establishment of this exportingproducer's margin of undercutting. The margin was thereforerevised.
(22)Taking the above into consideration, the definitive revisedweighted average price undercutting margins found per country,expressed as a percentage of the Community industry prices, areas follows:
— CzechRepublic: from 19 % to 21 %,
— Malaysia: from 52 % to 72 %,
— Russia: 26 %,
— Republic of Korea: 23 %,
— Slovakia: from 15 % to 36 %.
3.SituationoftheCommunityindustry
(23)It is recalled that the introduction of the measures against China,
Croatia and Thailand had a positive impact on the economicsituation of the Community industry. Most of the injury indica-
tors showed a positive development between 1996 and 1998.
Production, capacity utilisation and sales volume went up,resulting in a gain in market shares and increasing employment.The profitability indicators such as profits/losses as a percentageof turnover, return on investments and cashflow also developedfavourably. However, after 1998, the economic situation of the
Community industry generally deteriorated: while production
remained relatively stable and capacity utilisation, employmentand wages slightly increased, crucial indicators such as thevolume of sales and market shares decreased as well as profit-ability, return on investments cashflow and prices. On th e
basis of the above and of the findings regarding productivity,
investments, growthand magnitude of dumping, it was th ereforeconcluded, at a provisional stage, that the Community industrysuffered material injury.
(24)In the absence of any comments, the facts and figures as set outin recitals 72 to 87 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
4.Conclusiononinjury
(25)In the absence of any further comments on the findings other
than those set out above, the conclusion reached as set out in
recital 88 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.
G.CAUSATION
(26)In the absence of any new information submitted on causation,
the findings and the conclusion reached as set out in recitals 89
to 97 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
H.COMMUNITYINTEREST
(27)In the absence of any new information submitted on the
Community interest, the findings and the conclusion reached as
set out in recitals 98 to 111 of the provisional Regulation areconfirmed.
I.DEFINITIVEANTI-DUMPINGMEASURES
1.Injuryeliminationlevel
(28)Based on the methodology explained in recitals 112 to 115 of
the provisional Regulation an injury elimination level has been2002R1514 — EN — 25.08.2002 — 000.001 — 5
▼B
calculated for the purposes of establishing the level of measures
to be definitively imposed.
(29)One exporting producer questioned the level of the profit marginof 5 % that was used for the purpose of establishing the non-injurious price of the Community industry, claiming it was toohigh. It also claimed that this level of profit margin was not
sufficiently explained in the disclosed document.
(30)As to the first claim, it is recalled that, in view of the negative
impact on the profitability of the Community industry resultingfrom the price depressive effect caused by the dumped imports,
as indicated in recital 71 of the provisional Regulation, the
calculation of the non-injurious price was based on a level ofprofit that the Community industry might have reasonablyachieved in the absence of injurious dumping. As explained inthe recital 114 of the provisional Regulation, a profit margin of5 % was deemed reasonable, since this level of profit corre-
sponds to the actual level of profit that the Community industry
could achieve in 1997, on a Community market free of dumpedimports. Indeed, at that time, measures were in place againstChina, Croatia and Thailand and the market share of importsfrom the countries concerned was still relatively low. Moreover,
it was considered that this profit margin would allow the
Community industry to make the necessary investments. As tothe second claim, it should be noted that the Commissionexplained in sufficient detail in the disclosure document onwhich basis it calculated the level of profit margin used for thenon-injurious price, as also explained in recital 114 of the provi-
sional Regulation. The claims have therefore to be rejected.
(31)In addition, the same level of profit was also used for the estab-
lishment of the injury margin in the proceeding concerning the
abovementioned countries, and there is no reason to believe that
significant changes in circumstances have occurred since then.
(32)The use of a profit margin of 5 % of turnover for the calculationof the non-injurious price is therefore confirmed.
(33)On the basis of the above, the methodology used for establishingthe injury elimination level as described in recitals 112 to 115 ofthe provisional Regulation is confirmed.
(34)As mentioned above in relation to price undercutting margins,injury margins were reviewed and amended for one of theexporting producers in Slovakia.
2.Formandlevel oftheduties
(35)In the light of the foregoing and in accordance with Article 9(4)
of the basic Regulation, a definitive anti-dumping duty should be
imposed in respect of the Czech Republic, Malaysia, Russia, theRepublic of Korea and Slovakia. This duty should be imposed atthe level of the dumping margins found, except for the Republicof Korea, where the injury margin was found to be lower than
the dumping margin.
(36)On the basis of the above, the definitive duties are as follows:
Country CompanyAnti-dumping
duty
(%)
CzechRepublic All companies 22,4
Malaysia Anggerik Laksana Sdn
Bhd59,2
Others 75,0
Russia All companies 43,3
Republic of Korea All companies 44,02002R1514 — EN — 25.08.2002 — 000.001 — 6
▼B
Country CompanyAnti-dumping
duty
(%)
Slovakia All companies 15,0
3.Collectionofprovisionalduties
(37)In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in
the light of the level of the injury caused to the Communityindustry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by
way of the provisional anti-dumping duty, imposed by the provi-
sional Regulation, should be definitively collected at the rate ofthe duty definitively imposed. Where the definitive duties arehigher than the provisional duties, only the amounts secured atthe level of the provisional duties should be definitively
collected.
(38)Any claim requesting the application of these individual
company 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's activities linked to production, domesticand 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-
nies benefiting from individual duty rates.
4.Undertakings
(39)It is recalled that one exporting producer in Slovakia has offered
a price undertaking in accordance withArticle 8(1) of th e basicRegulation. This price undertaking was accepted in the provi-
sional Regulation.
(40)Subsequent to the imposition of provisional anti-dumping
measures, one exporting producer in the Czech Republic offereda price undertaking in accordance withArticle 8(1) of th e basicRegulation. By doing so, it has agreed to sell the product
concerned at or above price levels which eliminate the injurious
effects of dumping. The company will also provide the Commis-sion withregular and detailed information concerning its exportsto the Community, meaning that the undertaking can be moni-tored effectively by the Commission. Furthermore, the sales
structure of this exporting producer is such that the Commission
considers that the risk of circumventing the agreed undertakingis limited.
(41)To further enable the Commission to effectively monitor the
compliance of the company with its undertaking, when the
request for release for free circulation is presented to the relevantcustoms authority, exemption from the anti-dumping duty is tobe conditional on the presentation of a commercial invoicecontaining at least the elements listed in the Annex. This levelof information is also necessary to enable customs authorities to
ascertain with sufficient precision that shipments correspond to
the commercial documents. Where no such invoice is presented,or when it does not correspond to the product presented tocustoms, the appropriate rate of anti-dumping duty will insteadbe payable.
(42)In view of this, the offer of the undertaking is therefore consid-ered acceptable by the Commission and the company concerned2002R1514 — EN — 25.08.2002 — 000.001 — 7
(1) European Commission, DG Trade, Directorate B, J-79 — 3/35, B-1049
Brussels.
▼B
has been informed of the essential facts, considerations and obli-
gations upon which acceptance is based.
(43)It should be noted that in the event of a breach or withdrawal ofthe undertaking or a suspected breach, an anti-dumping dutymay be imposed, pursuant to Articles 8(9) and (10) of the basicRegulation.
(44)The above undertaking is accepted by Commission Decision2002/675/EC (
1),
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of
tube and pipe fittings (other than cast fittings, flanges and threadedfittings), of iron or steel (not including stainless steel), witha greatest
external diameter not exceeding 609,6 mm, of a kind used for butt-
welding or other purposes, falling within CN codes ex 7307 93 11(TARIC codes 730793 11*91 and 7307 93 11*99), ex 7307 93 19(TARIC codes 7307 9319*91 and 7307 9319*99),ex 7307 99 30(TARIC codes 7307 9930*92 and 7307 9930*98) and ex 7307 99 90(TARIC codes 7307 99 90*92 and 7307 99 90*98) and originating in
the Czech Republic, Malaysia, Russia, the Republic of Korea and
Slovakia.
2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net,
free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, shall be as follows forthe products manufactured by:
Country CompanyDefinitive
anti-dumping
duty
(%)TARIC addi-
tional code
CzechRepublic Mavet a.s., Trebic 17,6 A323
All other companies 22,4 A999
Malaysia Anggerik Laksana
Sdn Bhd, Selangor
Darul Ehsan59,2 A324
All other companies 75,0 A999
Russia All companies 43,3
Republic of Korea All companies 44,0
Slovakia Bohus s.r.o.,,
Nálepkova 310,976
45 Hronec7,7 A329
All other companies 15,0 A999
3. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the definitive anti-dumping duty
shall not apply to imports released into free circulation in accordancewithArticle 2.
4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning
customs duties shall apply.2002R1514 — EN — 25.08.2002 — 000.001 — 8
(1) See page 34 of this Official Journal.▼C2
▼B
▼B
Article 2
1. Imports declared for release into free circulation under the
following TARIC additional code which are produced and directly
exported (i.e. shipped and invoiced) by the company below to a
company in the Community acting as an importer shall be exemptfrom the anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1 provided that suchimports are imported in conformity withparagraph2 of th is Article.
Country CompanyTARIC addi-
tional code
CzechRepublic Bovex s.r.o., Hercikova 4,
612 00 BrnoA387
Slovakia Bohus s.r.o., Nálepkova 310,
976 45 HronecA329
2. Imports mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be exempt from the anti-
dumping duty on condition that:
(a) a commercial invoice containing at least the elements listed in the
Annex is presented to Member States' customs authorities uponpresentation of the declaration for release into free circulation; and
(b) the goods declared and presented to customs correspond precisely
to the description on the commercial invoice.
Article 3
Amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant
to Regulation (EC) No 358/2002 on imports of certain tube and pipefittings, of iron or steel falling within CN codes ex 7307 9311,ex 7307 93 19, ex 7307 99 30 and ex 7307 99 90 and originating in
the Czech Republic, Malaysia, Russia, the Republic of Korea and
Slovakia shall be definitively collected at the rate of the duty defini-tively imposed. Where the definitive duties are higher than theprovisional duties, only the amounts secured at the level of the provi-sional duties should be definitively collected.
Article 4
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its
publication in the Official JournaloftheEuropeanCommunities .
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable
in all Member States.2002R1514 — EN — 25.08.2002 — 000.001 — 9
▼B
ANNEX
The following elements shall be indicated in the commercial invoice accompa-
nying the company's sales of tube and pipe fittings to the Community which are
subject to the undertaking.
1. The heading ‘COMMERCIAL INVOICE ACCOMPANYING GOODS
SUBJECT TO AN UNDERTAKING’.
2. The name of the company mentioned in Article 2(1) issuing the commercial
invoice.
3. The commercial invoice number.4. The date of issue of the commercial invoice.
5. The TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice are to be
customs cleared at the Community frontier.
6. The exact description of the goods, including:
— Product Code Number (PCN),
— description of the goods corresponding to the PCN (e.g. ‘PCN 1 …’,
‘PCN 2 …’),
— company product code number (CPC) (if applicable),— CN code,— quantity (to be given in tonnes and pieces).
7. The description of the terms of sale, including:
— price per tonne and per piece,
— the applicable payment terms,— the applicable delivery terms,— total discounts and rebates.
8. Name of the company acting as an importer to which the invoice is issued
directly by the company.
9. The name of the official of the company that issued the undertaking invoice
and the following signed declaration: ‘I, the undersigned, certify that the sale
for direct export by [company name] to the European Community of the
goods covered by this invoice is being made within the scope and under the
terms of the undertaking offered by [company name], and accepted by the
European Commission through Regulation (EC) No 358/2002 and/or Deci-
sion 2002/675/EC. I declare that the information provided in this invoice is
complete and correct.’2002R1514 — EN — 25.08.2002 — 000.001 — 10
▼C1