2000R0348 — EN — 25.08.2002 — 001.001 — 1
This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
►B COUNCILREGULATION(EC)NO348/2000
of14February2000
imposingadefinitiveanti-dumpingdutyonimportsofcertainseamlesspipesandtubesofironor
non-alloysteel originating inCroatia andUkraineandcollecting definitively theprovisional duty
imposed
(OJ L 45, 17.2.2000, p. 1)
Amended by:
Official Journal
No page date
►M1Council Regulation (EC) No 1515/2002 of ►C119 August 2002 ◄L 228 8 24.8.2002
Corrected by:
►C1Corrigendum, OJ L 234, 31.8.2002, p. 56 (1515/2002)
▼B
COUNCILREGULATION(EC)NO348/2000
of14February2000
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain
seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating inCroatia and Ukraine and collecting definitively the provisional
dutyimposed
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 Articles
9(4) and 10(2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after
consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A.PROVISIONALMEASURES
(1)By Regulation (EC) No 1802/1999(2) (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘provisional Regulation’) the Commission imposed a provi-
sional anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community ofcertain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel origi-nating in Croatia and Ukraine.
B.SUBSEQUENTPROCEDURE
(2)Following the imposition of a provisional anti-dumping duty, the
interested parties which so requested were granted an opportu-nity to be heard. Parties were informed of the essential facts
and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping dutyand the definitive collection, at the level of this duty, of amountssecured by way of the provisional duty. They were also granteda period within which to make representations subsequent to thisdisclosure.
(3)The oral and written comments submitted by the interestedparties were considered and, where appropriate, the definitive
findings have been changed accordingly.
C.PRODUCTCONCERNEDANDLIKEPRODUCT
1.Productconcerned
(4)It is to be recalled that recital 7 of the provisional Regulation
described the product concerned as seamless pipes, of iron ornon-alloy steel, of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines, of anexternal diameter not exceeding 406,4 mm; seamless tubes ofcircular cross-section, of iron or non-alloy steel, cold-drawn or
cold-rolled; other tubes of circular cross-section, of iron or non-
alloy steel, of an external diameter not exceeding 406,4 mm,hereinafter referred to as ‘seamless tubes’.
(5)The claim has been repeated that seamless tubes should bedivided into two separate products concerned, i.e, commercialsteel grade tubes and steel line pipes for oil/gas applicationsand that any injury suffered by the Community industry shouldbe analysed separately for eachproduct.
(6)The alleged distinction is based on the ground that commercialtubes and line pipes are not interchangeable, given the specific2000R0348 — EN — 25.08.2002 — 001.001 — 2
(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No
905/98 (OJ L 128, 30.4.1998, p. 18).
(2) OJ L 218, 18.8.1999, p. 3.
▼B
certification required for oil/gas applications. It has also been
argued that the higher costs of producing line pipes precludetheir sale for non-oil/gas applications. Furthermore, it has been
alleged that commercial tubes are used in building and infra-
structural applications whereas line pipes are used in the oil andgas industries and that both products are sold through differentsales channels, with line pipes being sold directly to end-usersrather than to traders.
(7)It was found that all seamless tubes have the same basic physical
and technical characteristics. Although there is a wide range of
different types, varying according to external diameter, wallthickness, steel grade and technical specifications, no cleardividing line was found to exist between them.
(8)Furthermore, the investigation showed that all types of seamlesstube were sold to bothtraders and end-users. A clear distinction
between sales channels, although per se not relevant, could
therefore not be established.
(9)Finally, all seamless tubes were found to have essentially thesame use. Although they are used in many different industriessuchas th e construction, automobile, oil and petroleum indus-tries, power plant and boiler construction, pneumatics and
hydraulics, and engineering and although it is accepted that not
every user is able to use every type of seamless tube, they are allconsidered to have the same basic application.
(10)While certain types of seamless tube are clearly intended forspecific applications (e.g. oil pipelines), suchpipes can also beused in less specific applications. Furthermore, it was found
that commercial tubes could also be used in a wide range of
applications. All this shows the existence of a large degree ofcompetition and interchangeability between all product types.
(11)In conclusion, the provisional finding that all seamless tubes,whether commercial tubes or line pipes form one single productis confirmed.
2.Likeproduct
(12)It is to be recalled that in recitals 11 and 12 of the provisional
Regulation, the Commission found that the seamless tubesimported from the countries concerned, the seamless tubes
produced and sold in the Community by the Community industry
and those domestically sold on the Croatian market were alike intheir basic physical and technical characteristics and were foundto have essentially the same uses.
(13)It has been claimed that Community produced seamless tubeswere different from those imported from the Ukraine, since the
latter were manufactured to different standards from those used
by the Community industry, and that the specific testing require-ments applied to Community produced seamless tubes meantthat the production processes were different.
(14)The investigation has shown that both the Community industryand the Ukrainian exporters produce to the same or similar
national and international standards. Information provided by
the Ukrainian exporters shows that seamless tubes exported tothe Community, whether commercial tubes or line pipes,conform to industry standards suchas DIN, API and ASTM, asdo those produced by the Community industry.
(15)In view of the above, the provisional findings that seamless
tubes imported from the countries concerned, the seamless tubes
produced and sold in the Community by the Community industryand those domestically sold on the Croatian market are likeproducts within the meaning of Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC)No 384/1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘basic Regulation’)are confirmed.2000R0348 — EN — 25.08.2002 — 001.001 — 3
▼B
D.DUMPING
1.Croatia
(16)Since the adoption of the provisional measures, no arguments
have been submitted concerning the calculation of normal value,the determination of the export price, the comparison of thenormal value with the export price, or the establishment of thedumping margin. The findings as set out in recitals 13 to 19 of
the provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed. The dumping
margin, and the residual margin, therefore remain at the samelevel, i.e. 40,8 %.
2.Ukraine
a)Normal value
(17)After the publication of the provisional Regulation, an importer
objected to the selection of Croatia as an appropriate marketeconomy third country for the purpose of establishing normalvalue for Ukraine. This importer argued that the cost of energy
and other inputs in Croatia was much higher than in Ukraine,
that the Croatian domestic market was monopolised, or at leastdominated, by the sole producer, and that insufficient evidencehad been put forward to justify the representativeness of Croa-tian domestic sales.
(18)It is considered that the argument concerning the higher Croatiancosts is not relevant in that Ukraine is a non-market economyand any comparison is, by its nature, unreliable. What is relevantin this context is whether Ukrainian producers had any absoluteor comparative advantage as compared to Croatia, suchas amore efficient use of energy. However, this was not the case.
Moreover, the selection of Croatia was not unreasonable in that
one of the alternatives, Brazil, had been rejected on the groundsthat prices on the Brazilian market were indeed too high due tothe domination of one producer. Croatia, however, wasimporting the product concerned as well as exporting it, so therewas an element of competition on its domestic market. In addi-
tion, domestic sales were representative and amounted to more
than 5 % of total Ukrainian exports to the Community byvolume. Finally, even though every effort had been made toinvestigate other alternatives to Brazil such as the United Statesof America and the Czech Republic, no cooperation had been
forthcoming from either country.
(19)As no other arguments have been put forward either concerning
the methodology or the calculation of normal value, the findingsas set out in recitals 20 to 26 of the provisional Regulation aretherefore confirmed.
b)Export price
(20)One exporting producer objected to the fact that in establishing
the export price the Commission had not taken into account itssales to its related importer in the Community on the groundsthat the information submitted had been found to be unreliable.Since no new evidence was submitted to contradict this, the find-
ings set out in recitals 27 and 28 of the provisional Regulation
are confirmed.
c)Comparison
(21)The exporting producers reiterated their claim for an adjustment
for differences in physical characteristics because of the lower
standards used by the Ukrainian tube industry as compared tothe Community industry. This claim had been rejected at theprovisional stage because it was insufficiently substantiated.The exporting producers, however, failed again to back up theirarguments and, in the absence of new information, the findings2000R0348 — EN — 25.08.2002 — 001.001 — 4
▼B
set out in recitals 29 to 31 of the provisional Regulation are
confirmed.
d)Dumping margin
(22)The provisional findings on the dumping margins are therefore
confirmed at 123,7 % for Ukraine.
E.INJURY
1.DefinitionoftheCommunityindustry
(23)In the absence of any new information the provisional findings
as regards the definition of the Community industry, describedin recitals 34 to 38 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
2.Imports into the Community from the countries
concerned
a)Cumulation
(24)The Croatian exporting producer has argued that imports from
Croatia should not be cumulatively assessed with those origi-nating in the Ukraine. In this respect it was claimed that the
volume of imports from Croatia in the investigation period
(hereinafter referred to as ‘IP’) was substantially lower than thatfrom Ukraine, while the prices of these imports were higher. Itwas also claimed that Croatian exports have followed the pricesset by the Ukrainian imports in the Community market.
(25)The dumping margins have been found to be substantial for bothcountries. The volume of imports for both countries wasincreasing during the period examined reaching significant levelswhich, in both cases, were found to be well above de minimis
levels. As regards the prices of the imports, it was found thatthe prices of seamless tubes from both countries have signifi-
cantly undercut the prices of the Community industry during
the IP. Furthermore, seamless tubes from both countries aresold through the same sales channels and under comparable salesconditions, thus competing with each other and with the tubessold by the Community industry.
(26)The provisional findings regarding the appropriateness of thecumulative assessment of imports from Croatia and Ukraine aretherefore confirmed.
b)Prices of the dumped imports
(27)Price undercutting margins for Croatia and Ukraine were recal-
culated in the light of the evidence submitted by interestedparties as regards prices of certain product categories and thegrouping of seamless tubes for the purpose of price comparisons.
(28)As regards Croatia, the revised weighted average price undercut-ting expressed as a percentage of the Community industry'sprices amounts to 14,4 %.
(29)As regards Ukraine, the revised weighted average price under-
cutting expressed as a percentage of the Community industry's
prices amounts to 24 %.
3.SituationoftheCommunityindustry
a)Preliminary remark
(30)Following the publication of the provisional Regulation, the
Commission on 8 December 1999 found that certain Community
producers being part of the Community industry in the presentproceeding had infringed Article 81 of the EC Treaty by enga-ging in anti-competitive practices. It was concluded thatbetween 1990 and 1995 Dalmine, Mannesmannröhren-Werkeand Vallourec participated in an agreement providing for the2000R0348 — EN — 25.08.2002 — 001.001 — 5
▼B
observance of their respective domestic markets for certain
seamless tubes, notably oil country tubular goods and certainline pipes.
(31)The decision has been examined in order to determine whetherthe injury found to have been suffered by the Communityindustry derived from the dumped imports or whether it was
caused by the conduct of certain Community producers them-
selves.
(32)It should be noted that the period on which the findings of thisinvestigation were based (1 January 1997 to 31 October 1998) is
outside the period during which the anti-competitive practices
have been found to take place. In view of the fact that thesepractices took place in a period prior to that considered in thisproceeding and given that the increase in the volume of importsfrom Croatia and Ukraine at dumped prices has coincided with adeterioration of the situation of the Community industry, it
cannot be concluded that the anti-competitive conduct of certain
Community producers contributed to the injury suffered by theCommunity industry in the current proceeding to an extent thatwould break the causal link between the injury suffered by theCommunity industry and the imports concerned, within the
meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.
b)Arguments raised by interested parties on the provisional
findings
(33)The Ukrainian exporting producers have argued that the
Community industry has not suffered material injury within themeaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation, since between
1997 and the IP indicators concerning productivity and capacity
utilisation improved and market share remained stable. Further-more, they questioned the provisional findings on theprofitability of the Community industry. This claim wassupported by certain press articles quoting the improved finan-cial results of Community seamless tubes producers.
(34)It should be mentioned that, according to Article 3(5) of thebasic Regulation, none of the factors listed in this provision cangive decisive guidance on whether the Community industry has
suffered injury within the meaning of Article 3 of the basic
Regulation.
(35)As regards the improvement in the situation of the Communityindustry between 1997 and the IP, especially concerning produc-
tivity and capacity utilisation, this should be seen in the light of
the anti-dumping measures imposed in 1997 against imports ofseamless tubes from the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland,Romania, Russia and the Slovak Republic by Regulation (EC)No 2320/97(
1) Indeed, the intended effect of those anti-dumping
measures was to remove the injury found to be suffered by the
Community industry.
(36)It should also be noted that, between 1997 and the IP, the profit-
ability achieved by the Community industry remained at a levellower than what the industry could expect under normal condi-
tions of competition, in the absence of dumped imports. With
respect to the reliability of the profitability figures, it should benoted that they correspond to the information provided by theCommunity industry in the course of the investigation and veri-fied on-the-spot. In terms of the profitability figures submitted
by the Ukrainian exporting producers, it should be noted that
they include products not covered by the investigation and relateto a period outside the period examined in the present investiga-tion. As regards market share, it was found that the Communityindustry had been unable to regain previously lost market share.Thus, the Community industry could not fully benefit from the2000R0348 — EN — 25.08.2002 — 001.001 — 6
(1) OJ L 322, 25.11.1997, p. 1.
▼B
earlier imposition of definitive measures on imports originating
in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russia andthe Slovak Republic.
(37)In view of the above, the provisional findings as regards thematerial injury suffered by the Community industry areconfirmed.
F.CAUSATION
(38)In the absence of any new information the provisional findings
as described in recitals 68 to 73 of the provisional Regulationare confirmed.
G.COMMUNITYINTEREST
(39)In view of the findings of the Commission mentioned in para-
graph 30, it has been examined whether the imposition of anti-dumping measures could raise concerns about competition on
this market. In the light of the fact that the anti-competitive
practice were found to have taken place in a period prior tothat considered in this proceeding, there is no reason to concludethat the imposition of anti-dumping measures in the presentproceeding would have an impact on the competition on this
market in the future.
(40)In the absence of any new information on Community interest,
the provisional findings as described in recitals 74 to 83 of theprovisional Regulation are confirmed.
H.ANTI-DUMPINGMEASURES
1.Injuryelimination level
(41)The methodology used for establishing the injury margin as
described in recitals 86 and 87 of the provisional Regulation is
confirmed.
(42)The injury margins revised to take into account the commentsmade by interested parties, which have been described above in
recital 27, subsequent to the disclosure of provisional findings
are set out below:
Croatia: 23 %,
Ukraine: 38,5 %.
2.Formandlevelofthedefinitivemeasures
(43)The conclusions reached above as to dumping, injury, causation
and Community interest call for definitive measures. In view ofthe diversity of product types, the anti-dumping duty should be
in the form of ad valorem duties.
(44)In accordance withArticle 9(4) of th e basic Regulation, for all
exporting producers the level of the duty is based on the lowerof the injury or the dumping margin. These duties expressed as a
percentage of the free-at-Community frontier prices amount to:
Croatia: 23 %,
Ukraine: 38,5 %.
(45)Subsequent to the imposition of provisional anti-dumping
measures, the exporting producer in Croatia and the exporting
producers in Ukraine in conjunction with the Ukrainian authori-
ties offered price undertakings of the same type as thoseaccepted by the Commission from other producers in Centraland Eastern Europe in 1997 under Regulation (EC) No 2320/97. The elimination of the injury is achieved by two means: first,a price undertaking covering imports up to an agreed volume2000R0348 — EN — 25.08.2002 — 001.001 — 7
▼B
threshold and, second, an ad valorem duty levied on imports
over and above that threshold.
(46)To ensure that the quantity of imports exempted from the ad
valoremduty does not exceed the quantity specified in the price
undertaking, exemption from the anti-dumping duty is condi-
tional upon the presentation to Member States' customs services
of a valid production certificate clearly identifying the producer,and containing an exact description of the goods and a signeddeclaration by the producer.
(47)In order to enable the Commission to monitor compliance withthe undertakings effectively, the producers have also agreed toprovide the Commission with regular and detailed informationon their sales for export to the Community, and to keep available
copies of the production certificates for subsequent verification.
(48)As regards Ukraine, the undertaking offered by the Ukrainianexporting producers is a joint one, reflecting Ukraine's status as
a non-market economy country, and is underpinned by guaran-tees given by the Ukrainian authorities to ensure adequatemonitoring, particularly withregard to th e anti-dumping duty-free threshold.
(49)The price undertakings up to a certain volume threshold and thead valorem duty for the remainder of the imports are therefore
considered an adequate means of removing the injury suffered
by the Community industry. In the event of any breach, or
suspected breach, of an undertaking, the Commission wouldswiftly impose provisional or definitive duties in accordancewithArticles 8(9) and (10) of th e basic Regulation.
(50)The Commission has accepted these undertakings.
I.COLLECTIONOFPROVISIONALDUTIES
(51)In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found for the
exporting producers, and in the light of the level of the injurycaused to the Community industry, it is considered necessarythat the amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping
duty under the provisional 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 is hereby imposed on the
following imports originating in Croatia and Ukraine:
— 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
(falling within CN codes 7304 1010 and 7304 10 30);
— seamless tubes of circular cross-section, of iron or non-alloy steel,
cold-drawn or cold-rolled (falling within CN code 7304 3199);
— other tubes of circular cross-section, of iron or non-alloy steel, of an
external diameter not exceeding 406,4 mm (falling within CN codes7304 3991 and 7304 3993).
2. The rates of duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community fron-
tier price of imports of the product described in paragraph 1 shall beas follows:
Country Manufacturer Rate of duty Taric additional code
Croatia All companies 23 % A999
Ukraine All companies 38,5 % A999
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning
customs duties shall apply.2000R0348 — EN — 25.08.2002 — 001.001 — 8
▼B
Article 2
1. Imports shall be exempt from the anti-dumping duties imposed by
Article 1 provided that they are produced and sold for export to the
Community by the companies listed in paragraph 4 which have offered
undertakings accepted by the Commission and provided that the condi-tions in paragraphs 2 and 3 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
such certificates set out in the undertaking accepted by the Commis-sion, the essential 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 imports into the
Community free of anti-dumping duty shall not exceed those stipulated
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 following Taric additional codes:
Country Manufacturer TARIC additional code
Croatia Zeljezara Sisak d.d., Sisak A064
Article 3
Member States' reports to the Commission pursuant to Article 14(6) of
Regulation (EC) No 384/1996, 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, the quan-
tity, the value, the anti-dumping duty, the Member State of import and,
where appropriate, the serial number of the production certificate.
Article 4
The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties
imposed pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1802/1999 shall be collectedat the rate of the duty definitively imposed. Amounts secured in excessof the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties shall be released.
Article 5
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.2000R0348 — EN — 25.08.2002 — 001.001 — 9
▼M1
▼B
▼B
ANNEX
Mainelementsoftheproductioncertificate referred toinArticle 2(2) (*)
(a) The number of the certificate.
(b) Identification showing whether the certificate is an original or a copy.
(c) The date of expiry of the certificate.
(d) The following text:
‘Production certificate issued by [name of the company] pursuant to Article
2(2) of Council Regulation No 348/2000 for the exports to the European
Company within Taric additional Code [ Taric additional code ] of certain
seamless steel pipes and tubes.’
In the case of imports from Ukraine
‘Production certificate authenticated by the Ministry of […] of Ukraine for
monitoring pursuant to Article 2(2) of Council Regulation No 348/2000 for
the exports to the European Community within Taric additional Code [ Taric
additional code ] of certain seamless steel pipes and tubes.’
(e) The name and full address of the relevant exporting producer, including
telephone and fax numbers and possible identification number such as
national registration number for incorporated companies.
(f) The name and full address of the customer of the relevant exporting
producer, including telephone and fax numbers, to whom the product has
been sold and invoiced by this exporting producer.
(g) The number of the commercial invoice to which the production certificate
relates.
(h) The exact description of the goods, including:
— a product description sufficient to identify the product, which will be
identical to the product description on the invoice,
— CN code,
— quantity (in metric tonnes).
(i) In the case of imports from Croatia, the name of the official of the company
responsible for the issue of the certificate, and the following signed declara-
tion,
‘I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for export to the European Commu-
nity of the goods covered by this certificate is being made within the scope
and under the terms of the undertaking by [ name of the relevant exporting
producer], and within the permitted volume for anti-dumping duty-free
imports into the European Community set out in the Undertaking accepted
by the Commission pursuant to Decision 2000/…/EC [Decision C(2000)
271/2]. I declare that the information provided in this certificate is complete
and correct.’
In the case of imports from Ukraine, the following signed declaration by the
exporting producer:
‘I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for export to the European Commu-
nity of the goods covered by this certificate is being made within the scope
and under the terms of the undertaking by [ name of the relevant exporting
producer], and within the permitted volume for anti-dumping duty-free
imports into the European Community set out in the Undertaking accepted
by the Commission pursuant to Decision 2000/…/EC [Decision C(2000)
271/2]. I declare that the information provided in this certificate is complete
and correct.’
(j) In the case of imports from Ukraine, space for stamp and signature of an
authorised person in the Ministry of […] of Ukraine.
(k) Space for use by the competent authorities of the Community.2000R0348 — EN — 25.08.2002 — 001.001 — 10
(*) Each box on the certificate will be in four languages for Croatia, i.e. the language of
the country of the producer, English, French and German for Croatia and in two
languages for Ukraine, i.e. the language of the country of the producer and English.