2000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 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)No1784/2000
of11August2000
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed
on imports of certain malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings originating in Brazil, the Czech
Republic,Japan,thePeople's RepublicofChina,theRepublicofKoreaandThailand
(OJ L 208, 18.8.2000, p. 8)
Corrected by:
►C1Corrigendum, OJ L 53, 28.2.2003, p. 64 (1784/2000)
▼B
COUNCILREGULATION(EC)No1784/2000
of11August2000
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively
the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain malleable castirontubeorpipefittingsoriginatinginBrazil,theCzechRepublic,Japan, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and
Thailand
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) and in particular Articles9
and 10(2) 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 449/2000 (2), herein-
after the ‘provisional Regulation’), imposed a provisional anti-
dumping duty on importsinto the Community of malleable cas t
iron tube or pipe fittingsoriginating in Brazil, the CzechRepublic, Japan, the People'sRepublic of China, the Republicof Korea and Thailand, whereasno dutieswere impos ed onimportsoriginating in Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugo-slavia because their market shares had provisionally been found
to bede minimis .
B.SUBSEQUENTPROCEDURE
(2)Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considera-
tions on the basis of which it was decided to impose a
provisional anti-dumping duty on imports from Brazil, the CzechRepublic, Japan, the People'sRepublic of China, the Republic ofKorea and Thailand and not to adopt provisional measures onimportsoriginating in Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugo-
slavia, interested parties who so requested were granted an
opportunity to be heard by the Commission. They also madewritten submissions making their views known on the provi-sional findings.
(3)The Commission continued to seek and verify all information
deemed necessary for the definitive findings.
(4)Further verification visits were carried out at the premises of the
following importers/traders which had replied to the question-naire:
— Jannone SA, Spain,
— Nefit BV, The Netherlands,
— Thisa SA, Spain.
(5)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 and the definitivecollection of amounts secured by way of provisional duty. Theywere also granted a period within which they could make repre-sentations subsequent to this disclosure.2000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 000.001 — 2
(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation aslas t amended by Regulation (EC) No
905/98 (OJ L 128, 30.04.1998, p. 18).
(2) OJ L 55, 29.2.2000, p. 3.
▼B
(6)The oral and written argumentss ubmitted by the partieswere
considered, and, where appropriate, the provisional findings
have been modified accordingly.
C.THEINITIATIONOFTHEPROCEEDING
(7)Some interested parties reiterated their claim concerning the
non-inclusion of certain third countries in the investigation,
namely Bulgaria, Poland, Turkey and the United Statesof
America in the sense that this non-inclusion would be discrimi-natory and therefore invalidate the initiation of the proceeding.
(8)In thisres pect, it isconfirmed that no proceeding could be
initiated asregardsBulgaria and Poland s ince no dumping
existed on the basis of the evidence of normal value and exportprice information for the Bulgarian and Polish products providedby the complainant in the same manner as for the countriesconcerned by the present investigation. With regard to the
importsfrom the United Statesof America and Turkey, the
information available indicated de minimis import levels. This
claim should therefore be rejected.
D.PRODUCTUNDERCONSIDERATIONANDLIKEPRODUCT
1.Product under consideration
(9)The provisional Regulation described the product under consid-
eration asthreaded malleable cas t iron tube or pipe fittings
(‘malleable fittings’ or ‘fittings’), which are joined by a screwing
joining system, falling within CN code ex 7307 19 10. This defi-nition ishereby confirmed.
(10)Following the disclosure of the provisional findings, one inter-ested party argued that, in addition to CN code 7307 19 10,other CN codes should also fall within the scope of the investi-gation since the product under consideration was also importedinto the Community under these latter codes. It claimed, more-over, that the investigation should be extended to unthreaded
fittings, since these were imported into the Community, where
they were threaded and sold.
(11)With respect to the first point, the imports of malleable fittings
verified during the investigation had in all cases been done under
CN code 7307 19 10 which, ass et out in the Notice of Initiation,identifies the product under consideration. Consequently theimport data used in the present investigation correctly relate tothe product under consideration. If there were to be instances inwhich malleable fittingswould be imported under other CN
codes, this has to be considered as a misclassification, and the
attention of customs officials will be duly drawn to this issue.
(12)With regard to the second point, unthreaded fittings do not fall
within the definition of the product under consideration. In fact,
they are an intermediate product necessitating further manufac-turing steps which give the product under consideration one ofits essential characteristics, i.e. its joining mechanism. As aconsequence, unthreaded fittings as such are not in competitionwith the product under consideration and are not interchangeable
with it. Moreover, the investigation showed that the threading
represents a significant step in the manufacturing process intermsof value added to the malleable fitting, in particular inconsideration of the high level of labour involved in that step.Therefore, they cannot be considered to form one single product
together with threaded malleable fittings, i.e. the product under
consideration.
(13)Given the above, the provisional findings as regards the productunder consideration are hereby confirmed.2000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 000.001 — 3
▼B
2.Like product
(14)In recital 13, of the provisional Regulation, the Commission
found that malleable fittingsproduced by the Communityindustry and sold on the Community market as well as malleable
fittingsproduced in the countriesconcerned and exported to the
Community were like products, since there were no differencesin the basic physical and technical characteristics and uses ofthe existing different types of malleable fittings.
(15)Following the disclosure of the provisional findings, certaininterestered parties argued that Community-produced malleablefittingswere not a like product to thos e imported from the coun-tries concerned, because the cast iron used for the Community-
produced fittingswas , in general, white heart, whereasblack
heart was used for the imported ones.
(16)The investigation has shown that black heart and white heartfittings undergo a different annealing process. In the case ofwhite heart fittings, it lasts 80 to 120 hours at a temperature of1 100º. In the case of black heart fittings, it lasts between 50 to80 hours, at a temperature of 900º. These different processes
result in a differing carbon content, white heart fittings being
almost completely decarburised, whereas the carbon content ofblack heart fittings is reduced to a lesser degree. As a result,white heart fittings are in general somewhat more elastic, resis-tent and easier to galvanise than black heart fittings, which, inturn, are easier to thread and are somewhat more suitable for
applications in which pressure tightness is of importance.
(17)However, the investigation has shown that there is no differencein market perception distinguishing between white heart fittings
and black heart fittingsasin all res pectsother than the carboncontent they have closely resembling characteristics, the sameend uses and are thus interchangeable. This has been confirmedby the fact that the importers/traders which purchase both blackheart malleable fittingsfrom the countriesconcerned and white
heart malleable fittingsproduced by the Community indus try,
sell them to the users without making a distinction between thetwo gradesof material. Asto the us ersof the product underconsideration, the investigation has confirmed that they do notdifferentiate between white heart or black heart fittingsto any
significant degree.
(18)This is also suggested by the fact that both white heart and blackheart fitingsare included in the European Standard EN 10242
and in the International standard ISO 49, which specify therequirementsfor the des ign and performance of the malleablefittings. As concerns, in particular, the grade of the material tobe used, both white heart and black heart are admitted.
(19)Given the above, and since no new evidence was submitted onthis, the provisional findings as regards the like product areconfirmed.
E.FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO CROATIA AND THE
FEDERALREPUBLICOFYUGOSLAVIA
(20)AsregardsCroatia and The Federal Republic of Yugos lavia, it is
confirmed that the volume of importsoriginating in thos e coun-triesrepres ented 0,4 % and 0,3 % of the total Communityconsumption, respectively. As import volumes were considered
negligible in accordance with Article 9(3) of the Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protectionagainst dumped imports from countries not members of theEuropean Community (hereinafter the ‘basic Regulation’), theproceeding should be terminated with the respect to importsoriginating in these two countries.2000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 000.001 — 4
▼B
F.DUMPING
1.Market economy countries
1.1.Normalvalue
1.1.1.Application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation
(21)As stated in Section 3.4 of the provisional Regulation, only one
Japanese company and its related importer replied to theCommission's questionnaire for exporting producers. The infor-mation provided by the Japanese company, however, wasincomplete and in some instances incorrect and findings had to
be made in accordance with Article 18 of the Basic Regulation.
After adoption of provisional measures, these findings werereviewed. This led to a substantially revised assessment of thenormal value, as provisionally established.
(22)The Thai exporting producer for which normal value wasdeter-
mined in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation (see
recital 96; of the provisional Regulation) claimed that theCommission should reconsider its decision to use as facts avail-able the highest dumping margin found for transactions of thisexporter in cases in which no normal value of other Thai compa-
nieswasavailable.
(23)Thisargument wasrejected. The application of Article 18 of the
basic Regulation in the present case is considered appropriateand necessary in order to avoid giving a bonus for non-coopera-tion, thus ensuring a fair treatment vis-à-vis all other parties,
which had fully cooperated in the proceeding.
1.1.2.Normal value based on domestic sales
(24)The Brazilian exporting producer claimed that Article 2(2) of the
basic Regulation places the Commission under an obligation toinvestigate whether the prices of the domestic sales of producttypess old at volumesbelow 5 % of the volume exported to theCommunity are representative for the Brazilian market. It also
argued that, as the average profit margin of such sales was
reasonably high, the prices of such sales were representativeand should have been used to establish the normal value.
(25)It is the consistent practise of the Community institutions not to
use prices of products or product types that are not sold in repre-
sentative quantities in order to determine the normal value. Onlywhen sales volumes are equal to or exceed the 5 % thresholdwill the Commission consider that the sales are sufficientlyrepresentative to form a basis for normal value. No factors werefound which would justify a deviation from the normal practice
by using a volume of sales lower than the 5 % threshold.
(26)The Brazilian exporting producer stated that the Commission
used different and inconsistent methodologies in order to estab-lish the percentage of financing expenses and of other selling,
general and administrative costs (S&A), on the basis of the turn-
over for the like product on the one hand and on the basis oftotal turnover on the other hand.
(27)Thisargument cannot be accepted. The inves tigation revealedthat the exporting producer was unable to show the correctness
and reliability of the figuresreported in the reply to the ques -
tionnaire and the Commission had therefore no option but touse facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basicRegulation, in order to establish the amount of finance expensesand of other SG&A. Moreover, no evidence wasprovided
showing that the approach followed by the Commission did not
reasonably reflect the expenses incurred for sales of the likeproduct.
(28)The Czech exporting producer contested the fact that theCommission had considered the producing company, which was2000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 000.001 — 5
▼B
at the same time selling on the domestic market, and its related,
wholly owned domestic sales company as one economic entity.It argued that the Commission should not have added the
SG&A expenses of both companies in order to establish the
cost of production, on the grounds that both companies sold theproduct concerned to different levelsof trade.
(29)Asfar asthe SG&A expens esare concerned it isthe CommunityInstitutions' normal practice to consider all costs associated withthe production and sale of the product under consideration, irre-spective of the fact that these costs were incurred in one singlecompany or in two or more companiesforming one s ingle entity.Moreover the investigation revealed that one of the characteris-
tics of the two related companies in question was the absence of
a clear distinction between the expenses borne by the respectivelegal entities. This was clearly confirmed during the verificationwhen it was established that the related sales company wasbooking expenses in its accounting records that were in fact
linked to the activity of the producing company. The approach
taken at the provisional stage is therefore confirmed.
1.1.3.Constructed normal value
(30)The Brazilian exporting producer contested the method used to
establish the profit margin when constructing the normal value.It argued that only domestic sales of product types made in
representative quantities in relation to the exported quantities
should be taken into account. It furthermore argued that producttypes sold on the domestic market which were not exported at alland certain product types sold on the domestic market having adifferent threading than the onesexported to the Community
should have been excluded. In addition, the company claimed
that an adjustment for the profit margin of the latter types, alleg-edly having a higher profit margin, should at least have beengranted. Finally, it claimed that loss-making sales should nothave been excluded in order to establish the profit margin.
(31)The profit margin used in order to construct normal value hasbeen established in line with Article 2(6) of the basic Regula-tion, namely based on actual data pertaining to sales, in theordinary course of trade, of the like product, by the Brazilianexporting producer under investigation. In order to consider
whether sales were indeed made in the ordinary course of trade,
the Community Institutions have applied their consistent practiceas described in recital 23 of the provisional Regulation, whichprovides that loss making sales of a given product type areincluded in the profit calculation, except when they represent
20 % or more of the total quantity of that type sold on the
domestic market. No information has been provided whichwould justify a deviation from normal practice and the resultsas provisionally established are therefore confirmed.
(32)The cooperating Korean company disputed the Commission'smethodology for calculating the domestic profit margin,claiming that the calculation of constructed normal valuesresulted in unreasonably high margins.
(33)The profit margin used in the constructed value is the accuratelyassessed and actual profit realised on all sales in the ordinarycourse of trade on the domestic market, in line with Article2(6) of the basic Regulation and the consistent practice of theCommunity institutions.
(34)The same Korean company also submitted that certain sellingexpenses relating to domestic sales should be excluded from thedomestic SG&A expenses included in the constructed normalvalues.
(35)In fact, the relevant selling expenses incurred on domestic sales— packing and transportation costs — were already deducted toensure a fair comparison between the normal value and theexport price. This was done based on adjustments claimed and2000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 000.001 — 6
▼B
granted for these expenses in the form of domestic allowances.
The correct approach adopted in the provisional Regulation istherefore confirmed.
(36)The Korean company claimed that for certain exported producttypes which were not sold domestically normal value shouldhave been calculated by reference to sales prices on the domestic
market of closely resembling product types.
(37)Thisargument can in principle be accepted. However, s ome of
the product types sold domestically in sufficient quantities and
that were presented as being comparable with product types for
which no domestic sales existed were seen to differ substantiallyboth in terms of cost of manufacturing and of their physicalcharacteristics such as weight, size of exits etc. In order for theCommission to be able to use these prices to establish normalvalue the estimation and application of numerous and significant
adjustments would have been required. It was therefore
concluded and is hereby confirmed that the use of constructednormal values in such cases is the most accurate and appropriatebasis for establishing normal value.
1.2.Exportprice
(38)The Brazilian exporting producer argued that export sales made
via the related importer in the Community were excludedwithout any justification.
(39)It hasbeen pointed out in recital 41 of the provis ional Regula-
tion that these sales represent a negligible part of the exports
and could ass uch not have had a material impact on the find-ings. In fact, the dumping calculations excluding the quantitiessold via the related importer cover more than 97 % of the totalquantity exported to the Community, i.e. a fully representative
quantity. It is therefore considered justified to exclude these
sales.
1.3.Comparison
(40)The Brazilian exporting producer contested the fact that the
Commission did not use the product control numbers (PCN's)
identifying product types as proposed in the questionnaire for
comparing normal valuesand export prices .
(41)It isconfirmed that the originally propos ed PCN'swere notretained. This was done since the on-the-spot verification
showed that product types with different characteristics resulting
in different costs and market values were grouped under thesame PCN's. In order to make a fair and accurate comparisonbetween normal value and export price asrequired by Article 2(10) of the Basic Regulation, the internal product categorisation
of the company was used. This led to a comparison of normal
valuesand export pricesof identical product types .
(a) Physical characteristics
(42)The Brazilian exporting producer also claimed an adjustment for
differences in physical characteristics between the domestic and
export product types.
(43)It should be noted that where the Community Institutions
compared domestic normal valu and export prices of identicalproduct types, no further allowance for differences in physical
characteristics was warranted. For product types for which no
identical types were sold on the domestic market in representa-tive quantitiesand in the ordinary cours e of trade, the normalvalue was constructed based on the cost of manufacture of theexported types so that also for those types no further physical
differences existed and therefore no further adjustment was
warranted.
(44)One Thai exporting producer objected to the Community Institu-tions' decision to reject a level of trade adjustment (see recital2000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 000.001 — 7
▼B
105 of the provisional Regulation). It claimed that price differ-
encesexis ted for certain product typesdepending on theirphysical characteristics.
(45)Although the company qualified itsclaim asa level of tradeadjustment, it was in fact requesting an allowance for differences
in physical characteristics. Following the disclosure of the
Commission's provisional findings, the company substantiallymodified the claim made in the questionnaire reply so that itreferred to other physical characteristics than the ones originallyspecified. The Community Institutions were no longer in a posi-
tion to verify the substance of the newly alleged price difference
at this late stage of the proceeding. In this respect it should benoted that the questionnaire sent to the exporter clearly indicatedthat it was essential for a claim to be made accurately and intime to allow the Commission to investigate it. Consequently,the claim wasrejected and provis ional findingsare confirmed.
(b) Import chargesand indirect taxes(‘duty draw-
back’)
(46)Asannounced in recital 47 of the provis ional Regulation, theclaim made by the Brazilian exporting producer for an adjust-ment to the normal value for refund of certain indirect taxeswasfurther examined. Thisexamination led to the conclus ionthat the claim made by the company was excessive and unjusti-fied. The amount that wasactually refunded on export s ales
made to the Community and at the same time borne by the
product concerned when consumed in Brazil was only a fractionof the amount claimed. The allowance provisionally granted wastherefore revised accordingly.
(c) Level of trade
(47)The Brazilian and the Czech exporting producer reiterated both
their claim for an allowance to the normal value for differencesin level of trade with regard to sales made to an OEM customer
in the Community.
(48)Based on the clarifications provided by both companies, adjust-mentswere made. Thiswasdone under Article 2 (10)(d)(ii) of
the Basic Regulation, as the companies did not sell at both levelsconcerned on their domestic markets.
(d) Credit costs
(49)The cooperating Korean company alleged that it incurred no
credit costs on export sales and that the calculations should beadjusted accordingly.
(50)Thisclaim wasfound to be in contradiction with the company'squestionnaire response. The Commission took into account thepayment termsagreed with the cus tomersboth in the Commu-
nity and in Korea and reported by the company in itsown reply
to the questionnaire. Consequently the claim was rejected.
(e) Currency conversions
(51)The Brazilian exporting producer claimed that the Commission
should have used daily exchange rates, instead of the monthlyaverage rates.
(52)Given the important devaluation of the Brazilian Real in January1999 and the material impact on the dumping calculations, thisargument wasaccepted and exceptionally daily rateswere us edfor the definitive dumping calculations.
(53)The same exporting producer also claimed that the Commissionshould have used the exchange rate at the date of payment of theinvoice rather than at the date of the invoice.
(54)The Basic Regulation provides in Article 2(10)(j) that currencyconversions shall be made using the rate of exchange on the2000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 000.001 — 8
▼B
date of sale, which was considered to be the date of invoice.
Other alternative datesare the date of contract, purchas e orderor order confirmation, but only if those more appropriately
reflect the material termsof s afe. However, the exchange rate
at the date of payment cannot be used. Consequently the claimhad to be rejected.
2.Non-Market economy countries
2.1.Individualtreatment
(55)As stated in the provisional Regulation, the Commission has
further investigated the request for individual treatment made
by one of the Chinese producers.
(56)During the investigation period the company sold most of itsproduction destined for export to a Chinese State-owned trader.Consequently, it had no control regarding prices, quantities orthe destination of its export sales. These tasks were entirely
under the control of the State-owned trader. Furthermore, the
information provided on export activitieswasvery incomplete,in particular regarding sales from the trader to customers in theCommunity since the trader did not cooperate.
(57)Another Chinese producer claimed to be fully independent from
State interference and stressed that its private status averted any
risks of circumvention.
(58)As in the above case the company made most of its export trans-actionsvia a Chines e State-owned trader and had no knowledgeof the price charged to the Community customer by the trader.
This State interference was sufficient to introduce a risk of
possible future circumvention of the countrywide duty shouldthiscompany receive itsown individual duty rate. Cons equently,the claim could not be accepted.
(59)Finally, a third company alleged that the Commission appliedthe rulesregarding individual treatment in a dis criminatory
manner by refusing to grant it such treatment while individual
treatment was granted in another case with identical facts. Itclaimed that the reason for not receiving individual treatmentwasthat it wass ubject to certain lawson foreign inves tmentthat provide for tax rebates and salary setting rules, and that
other companies, in other anti-dumping proceedings, although
subject to the same laws nevertheless did obtain individual treat-ment.
(60)The company was specifically set up in order to obtain anincome tax benefit. Thistax benefit wasonly available forcompanieswhich export at leas t 70 % of their production and
the investigation showed that this threshold was fully applied in
practice. On this basis, it was decided that the company was noteligible for individual treatment. It isals o pointed out that, asfarasthe alleged dis crimination isconcerned, no company insimilar circumstances received individual treatment.
(61)In the light of the above it isconcluded that the three Chines ecompaniesfailed to demons trate a degree of independence fromthe authorities so that the risk of circumvention of the country-wide duty isremoved. Their reques tsfor individual treatment aretherefore rejected.
3.Dumping margin for companies investigated
(62)In the absence of any comments by the interested parties it was
decided to apply the methods set out in the provisional Regula-tion for cooperating and non cooperating companies.2000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 000.001 — 9
▼B
(63)The definitive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of
the cif import price at the Community border, are:
3.1.Brazil
Indústria de Fundiáo Tupy Ltda: 34,8 %,
Others: 34,8 %.
3.2.TheCzechRepublic
Moravské Zelezárny a.s.: 26,1 %,
Others: 26,1 %.
3.3.Japan
Hitachi MetalsLtd: 47,3 %,
Others: 65,7 %.
3.4.Korea
Yeong Hwa Metal Co. Ltd: 13,4 %,
Others: 23,4 %.
3.5.Thailand
BIS Pipe Fitting Industry Company Ltd: 22,1 %,
Siam FittingsCo. Ltd: 12,4 %,
Thai Malleable Iron & Steel Co. Ltd: 6,3 %,
Others: 22,1 %.
3.6.China
All companies: 49,4 %.
CroatiaandtheFederal RepublicofYugoslavia
(64)In view of the finding of de minimis market shares for the
importsof the product concerned originating in both Croatiaand the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, it was decided not tocalculate a dumping margin for importsof the product concerned
from these countries.
G.DEFINITIONOFTHECOMMUNITYINDUSTRY
(65)Two interested parties reiterated their claim that because one
Community producer imported the product under consideration
from certain countriesconcerned, i.e. from China and Thailand,it should not be considered as belonging to the Communityindustry. Moreover, it was claimed by some interestered partiesthat certain Community producersimported malleable fittingsfrom certain other third countries, namely Bulgaria and Turkey,
and that therefore, likewise, they should not be considered as
forming part of the Community industry.
(66)As to the first point, the Commission further investigated theissue. However no evidence of any such imports was found.
(67)As to the second point, the investigation confirmed that these
imports, although having taking place in certain instances, were
minimal by comparison with the Community-produced sales ofthe Community producersconcerned, thusnot affecting theirstatus as producers of the like product in the Community.
(68)Therefore, these arguments should be rejected. For these reasons,and in the absence of any other new information, the findings onthe definition of the Community industry as described in recitals133 and 134 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.2000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 000.001 — 10
▼B
H.INJURY
1.Imports from the countries concerned
1.1.Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports
concerned
(69)The interested parties concerned reiterated the argument thattheir imports should not be assessed cumulatively with the otherimports concerned. These claims were further analysed, on thebasis of the conditions set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regu-lation.
1.1.1.Brazil
(70)The Brazilian producing exporter reiterated itsclaim that exports
of malleable fittingsfrom Brazil s hould not be cumulated withthe exportsfrom the res t of the countriesconcerned, in view ofthe different trade patterns, in particular as regards the importvolume and the pricing.
(71)It should be noted that the dumping margin found for Brazil issubstantial. As to the volume of imports, they were 4 188 tonnesin the IP, corresponding to a market share of 6,9 % and thus
were far from being negligible.
(72)Asto the conditionsof competition between imported products ,
and the conditionsof competition between the imported productsand the like Community product, the further analysis of the rele-vant factorshass hown that although the trend of Brazilianimport volumesand thos e of the importsfrom the other coun-triesconcerned were not in all cas esidentical during the injury
investigation period, the difference among them was not such as
to justify a non-cumulative assessment. Indeed, the trend of theBrazilian importswasfound to be uns table, thusfollowing asimilar trend as compared with some of the other countriesconcerned, namely Japan, South Korea and Thailand. Asregards
the prices of the Brazilian imports, they were likewise found to
be unstable: they increased between 1995 and 1996 by around13 %, then gradually decreased between 1996 and 1998 byaround 10 % in total and, finally, increased again between 1998and the IP by around 2 %. A similarly unstable pattern was alsofound for almost all the other countries concerned. Therefore,
although not being alwaysidentical during the IIP the difference
among the prices was not such as to justify a non-cumulativeassessment.
(73)All the countries concerned operate within the same or similarchannels of distribution, as confirmed by the fact that sometraders imported or purchased the product under considerationfrom both variouscountriesconcerned and the Community
producers.
(74)Asto market perception of the Brazilian imported productsandthe Community produced products, the investigation has
confirmed that there isno difference, asevidenced als o by theaforementioned similarities found in the distribution channels.
(75)For these reasons, it is concluded that the effect of Brazilianimports should be assessed cumulatively with the effects of theimportsoriginating in the other countriesconcerned.
1.1.2.The Czech Republic
(76)The Czech producing exporter argued that exportsof malleable
fittingsfrom the Czech Republic s hould not be cumulatively
assessed with those originating in the other countries concernedon the groundsthat they competed neither with the fittingsimported from the other countriesconcerned nor with thos emanufactured and sold by most of the Community industry.The Czech exporting producer in thisres pect claimed that its2000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 000.001 — 11
▼B
fittingswere mainly s old on a limited part of the Community
market.
(77)The investigation has however shown that a significant propor-tion of the Czech exportswasactually directed into s everalMember States. Moreover, even when considering that the restof the Czech exportsare concentrated in one Member State
only, this cannot in itself be considered as an element on the
basis of which a non-cumulative assessment could be justifiedin view of the size of this market, in view of the significantimportsoriginating in the other countriesconcerned cominginto thismarket and in view of the fact the Community indus try
also has significant sales in this market.
(78)On this basis, the provisional findings regarding the appropriate-
ness of the cumulative assessment of imports from the CzechRepublic are confirmed.
1.1.3.The Republic of Korea
(79)The Korean producing exporter argued that exportsfrom the
Republic of Korea should not be cumulated with those from theother countriesconcerned on the groundsof the s pecific tech-nical characteristics of its product, which has taper external
threadsand taper internal threads(taper/taper fittings ), with in
the rest of the Community the malleable fittings generally havetaper external threadsand parallel internal threads(taper/parallelfittings). It was claimed that the Korean imports, which wereonly made to the United Kingdom market, were in competition
only with the fittings of the sole British producer, which manu-
factured taper/taper fittingsaswell. It hasbeen argued moreoverthat, during the IP, only a negligible part of the United Kingdommarket was supplied by taper/parallel threaded fittings. As aconsequence, injurious dumping could, if at all, only be assessedon a regional basis.
(80)As concerns any regional assessment of injurious dumping, itshould be noted that not all the conditions set out in this respectin Article 4(1)(b) of the basic Regulation were met. Indeed,
during the IIP, not only the British producer, but also other
Community producersand exporting producersfrom the coun-triesconcerned and from other third countriess old the productunder consideration on the United Kingdom market. The investi-gation showed moreover that, in particular in the IP, significantquantitiesof taper/parallel fittingshave been s old in the United
Kingdom market, representing a share of the local consumption
of the product under consideration well above 20 %, whichcannot be considered negligible.
(81)On this basis, the appropriateness of the cumulative assessmentof the importsfrom Korea with thos e originating in the othercountriesconcerned isconfirmed.
1.1.4.Thailand
(82)The Thai producing exporter reiterated itsclaim that exportsof
malleable fittingsfrom Thailand s hould not be cumulated with
the exportsfrom the res t of the countriesconcerned, in view ofthe fact that the Thai importsdecreas ed over the IIP whenexpressed as a percentage of the total imports into the Commu-nity, i.e. comprising all imports both from the countriesconcerned and from the other third countries.
(83)It should be noted, firstly, that according to Article 3(3) of thebasic Regulation, consideration shall be given to the volume ofdumped imports which, when expressed in relative terms, has to
be calculated in relation to production or consumption in the
Community. In the current investigation, the imports from thecountries concerned have been expressed in relation to theconsumption in the Community. On this basis, the market shareof Thailand wasabove 1 % during the IP, thusnot negligibleaccording to the Community legislation. Secondly, during the2000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 000.001 — 12
▼B
IP, the Thai importscons tituted more than 3 % of the overall
importsinto the Community, thusbeing clearly above the WTOde minimis threshold.
(84)As to the import trends observed over the IIP and as shown
above, the development of Thai importswasnot different to thetrends observed for the other countries concerned, justifyingthem not to be cumulated with these other countries. Therefore,
having in addition regard to the findingson the dumping which
is considerable, and the channels of distribution used, the appro-priateness of the cumulative assessment of the imports fromThailand with those originating in the other countries concernedisconfirmed.
1.1.5.Conclusion on cumulation
(85)On the basis of the above, the investigation has confirmed that
the conditionsof cumulation, ass et out in Article 3(4) of the
basic Regulation, are met since for all the countries concerneddumping marginsabove the de minimis level and volume of the
importsnegligible have been found. Furthermore, asconcernsthe conditionsof competition between, on the one hand, theimported productsand, on the other hand, the imported products
and the like Community product, these were found to be
comparable. Indeed, the investigation showed that, in all cases,the imported products and those of the Community industryhave the same physical and technical characteristics, that thepricing trends are similar, significantly undercutting the Commu-
nity industry's prices, and that all imported products as well as
the Community-produced products are sold through the same orsimilar channels of distribution. Therefore, the provisional find-ings regarding the appropriateness of the cumulative assessmentof the importsfrom the countriesconcerned are confirmed.
1.2.Price undercutting
1.2.1.Adjustments for black and white heart fittings
(86)Some interested parties claimed that adjustments should be made
in the price comparison between imported products (black heartfittings) and the Community produced product (in general white
heart fittings) on the grounds of the different perception of the
market and of the difference in the production process (in parti-cular in the annealing process, since white heart malleablefittings commanded a higher cost of production because of theincreased energy consumption than black heart malleable
fittings), which was reflected in the selling prices.
a) Market perception
(87)In this respect it has been found that, as described above (para-
graph 2.2.), in those instances in which both black and whiteheart malleable fittings were sold by the same party, and there-fore any distinction in market perception should have beenobservable, no such distinction was actually observed, in any
event not in terms of pricing differences. As to the users of the
product under consideration, the investigation has confirmed thatthey do not differentiate between white heart or black heartfittings. On the basis of the above, it was therefore not possibleto grant an adjustments on the grounds of the alleged differencebetween white and black heart fittings.
b) Cost of production and selling price
(88)Moreover, asconcernsalleged differencesin the cos t of produc-
tion and any effects on the selling prices, the data availableallowed the detailed verification of the manufacturing colt struc-ture of both black and white heart fittings. While the energyconsumption in order to obtain the complete decarburization ofwhite heart fittings is greater than the energy consumption used2000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 000.001 — 13
▼B
to obtain the only partially decarburized black heart fittings, the
investigation has shown not only that the cost for energy repre-sents a small proportion of the total manufacturing cost, but also
that in terms of actual energy consumption and the cost related
thereto, the difference between the two processes is not signifi-cant and depends more on the specific production set up and itsenergy efficiency of the producer concerned.
(89)In addition, as concerns the selling prices, it was found thatwhere Community-produced black heart and white heart fittingswere sold on the same markets, the prices for black heart
fittings, contrary to the claim by some interested parties, were
in some cases even higher. Moreover, information availableshowed that in those cases where wholesalers and distributorspurchased both black heart malleable fittings from the countriesconcerned and white heart malleable fittingsfrom the Commu-
nity industry, they often resold them at the same prices and did
not specify the difference between the two in terms of the twogradesof cas t iron.
(90)These arguments are therefore rejected.
1.2.2.Adjustments for market segments
(91)Some interested parties claimed that the market of the malleable
fittings falls into three segments, depending on the price bracketand the reliability of the product asmanufactured by certainCommunity producersaswell asby certain exporting producers .It was consequently claimed that the price comparison should be
undertaken on the basis of three different market segments (high,
medium, low) in which different Community and exportingproducerswere pres ent.
(92)Although no elementswere provided allowing any objective andclean division of the market in three specific segments, it wasexamined whether other methods of price comparison based onsuch alleged market segments would lead to different results of
the price undercutting. As a result of this examination, no signif-
icant differenceshave been found ascompared to themethodology applied at the provisional stage, i.e. the comparisonof the weighted average ex-workspricesof the Communityproducersto the weighted average export pricesof eachexporting producer concerned, for each type of malleable
fittings.
(93)In conclusion, although the investigation has shown that certaindifferences in perceived segments may exist, no objective
criteria are apparent in order to correspondingly categorise theCommunity industry and exporting producers. Therefore, themethodology applied at the provisional stage is confirmed.
1.2.3.Conclusion on price undercutting
(94)Before the above background, price undercutting marginswere
reviewed on the basis of the evidence submitted by interested
partiesand amended where appropriate. AsregardsJapan, the
revised weighted average price undercutting expressed as apercentage of the Community industry's prices decreased to16,2 %. With respect to the other countries concerned, the provi-sional weighted average price undercutting expressed as a
percentage of the Community industry's prices are confirmed.
2.Situation of the Community industry
2.1.Choiceofeconomic indicators
(95)With respect to the injury assessment, one interested party
argued that the determination of the impact of the dumpedimports was not valid since certain injury factors set out inArticle 3(4) of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement had notbeen examined.2000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 000.001 — 14
▼B
(96)In this respect it should be noted that the WTO Anti-dumping
Agreement and the basic Regulation do not require that each
factor be analysed in the exactly same way. Moreover, in thespecific case, all the relevant factors considered as having abearing on the state of the Community industry have been takeninto account in the context of the injury assessment. The claim istherefore rejected.
2.2.Analysisoftrends
(97)The Czech exporting producer further alleged that the Commu-
nity industry had not suffered material injury in the sense ofArticle 3 of the basic Regulation since the Commission had inseveral instances taken 1995 as a starting point for its analysiswhereas, had 1996 been taken as a starting point, severaleconomic indicators would actually show a positive trend.
(98)In this respect it should be noted, firstly, that dumping and theinjury suffered by the Community industry must be found during
the IP. In order to establish whether such injury exists, interalia ,
the developmentsand trendsfound in the yearspreceding the IPare only used in order to have a better understanding of findingsrelating to the IP. In this current case, since the investigationperiod started in April 1998, it has been deemed appropriate, in
order to obtain a meaningful picture of the evolution of the
injury indicators, to take into account at least three calendaryears(1995-1997) prior to the IP. Secondly, even if 1996 weretaken as reference year, the result of the injury analysis wouldnot change. On the contrary, the injury suffered by the Commu-nity industry would be even more evident in the development of
certain injury indicators as profitability and stocks. The other
injury indicatorswould have followed the s ame negative trend,with the exception of the investments, and of the productionvolume, the increase of which however resulted in higher stocks.
(99)For these reasons, the above argument is rejected
2.3.Conclusiononinjury
(100)In view of the above, the provisional findings as regards the
material injury suffered by the Community industry set in recital160 of the provisional Regulation, are confirmed.
I.CAUSATION
1.Impact of the imports concerned
(101)Some interested parties claimed that the assessment of the causal
link was flawed since the Community industry was able toincrease its prices during the IIP, while the evolution of theproduction and the production capacity, aswell asthe decreas e
of the employment and the lack of profitability were caused by
factorsother than the dumped imports , namely, in particular, theCommunity industry's decision to rationalise production and thenecessity to comply with the European environmental standards.Moreover one interested party questioned the provisional findingconcerning the closure of the manufacturing plant of malleable
fittingslocated in Germany, claiming that the producersfacilities
had actually been relocated to Austria and, as consequence, thiselement could not be considered as a sign of the injury sufferedby the Community industry.
(102)Asa general remark it mus t be underlined that the injurysuffered by the Community industry must be assessed by refer-ence to the IP. As to the earlier years and the trends established
over these years, they explain the background underlining the
injury established. As regards the current proceeding, the inves-tigation established that the Community industry underlookrestructuring efforts in 1995, with the effect of and as evidencedby the decrease of production and employment, the significantlevel of investments and the low level of profitability in that2000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 000.001 — 15
▼B
particular year. The results of these restructuring efforts began to
materialise in 1996, as indicated by the rising production and thebetter financial results (profitability improved by 3,6 percentage
points between 1995 and 1996). However, these results and the
further benefitswhich could have been reas onably expected toaccrue to the Community industry from these efforts have beenfrustrated by the developments on the market. Indeed, as from1996, the import volumesfrom the countriesconcerned began
to increase and their prices started to decrease, whereas simulta-
neously, the Community industry began to suffer a continuousdecline of its sales volume and market share, throughout therest of the IIP. The contraction of the sales of the Communityindustry entailed a rise of its stocks and a decline of its profit-ability, which, although rising between 1995 and 1996, then
decreased by 2,3 percentage points between 1996 and the IP to
–9 %.
(103)Asregardsmore s pecifically the development of the Communityindustry's sales prices, the investigation has shown that the riseof 5 % between 1995 and the IP of the average sales price of
the Community industry occurred in two phases, one between
1995 and 1996, when the whole market experienced a generalprice increase, and the second one between 1997 and 1998,when only the Community industry and other third countriesraised their prices, while the prices of the countries concerned
decreased significantly. These price developments should be
seen in the light of the fact that the price pressure of the importsconcerned had an impact on the volume of the sales and on themarket shares of the Community industry rather than on its pricelevel. Indeed, when faced with low-priced importsoriginating inthe countries concerned, the Community industry had the possi-
bility of either maintaining its prices with a risk of losing market
shares, or following the low prices of dumped imports with theaim of maintaining the sales volumes. It decided to maintain itsprices, but the consequences on the sales volume had an impacton the profitability, which turned negative after 1996.
(104)Secondly, asto the development of the Community indus try'sproduction volumes, and in particular the aspect of the closureof the manufacturing plant located in Germany, the investigationhasconfirmed that thisplant wasindeed clos ed at the end of1995 and that the related facilitieswere not relocated to Aus tria
as claimed by one interested party. Actually only a small amount
of stocks were transferred there.
(105)On the basis of the above, the findings as described in recital170 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
2.Imports from other third countries
(106)Some interested parties questioned the provisional findings of
the Commission on the effect on the situation of the Communityindustry of imports of the product under consideration from
other third countries, namely Turkey, Bulgaria and Poland.
(107)According to Eurostat, during the IIP, imports from other third
countriesdecreas ed in volume by around 14 % while marketshares decreased by around 1 percentage point. As to the prices,they increased on average by around 15 % and were 17 % higher
than the average pricesof the importsfrom the countries
concerned.
2.1.Turkey
(108)More specifically, as concerns Turkey, during the IP the
weighted average price of importswasaround 10 % higherthan the weighted average price of the importsconcerned and,during the IP, its market share remained stable at around 1 %of Community consumption.2000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 000.001 — 16
▼B
2.2.Bulgaria
(109)Asto Bulgaria, although the import volumesincreas ed during
the IIP from 43 to 1 109 tonnes, in relative terms these importsare not such as to alter the conclusions on the causal link
between the injury suffered by the Community industry and the
importsfrom the countriesconcerned: indeed, in the IP, theyrepresented 1,8 % of the total market as compared to a marketshare of 28,6 % of the imports concerned. In addition, duringthe IIP their price increased by around 11 % and, in the IP, was
around 5 % higher than the weighted average price of the
importsconcerned.
2.3.Poland
(110)With respect to Poland, market shares remained fairly stable
during the IIP, and the average price wasaround 27 % higherthan the average price of the importsconcerned.
2.4.Conclusiononotherthirdcountries
(111)In conclusion, given the above, even if imports from other third
countriesmay have contributed to the material injury s uffered bythe Community industry, it is hereby confirmed that they are notsuch to have broken the causal link between the dumping andthe injury found.
3.Substitution effect
(112)Some interested parties questioned the provisional findings as
regards the substitution of fittings made of materials such as
copper and plastic for those made of malleable cast iron andthe effect of this alleged substitution on the situation of theCommunity industry.
(113)The issue has been further investigated and it has beenconfirmed that indeed the substitution of cast iron by different
materials, such as copper and plastic, took place mainly in the
1980's. Afterwards, the substitution effect slowed down and theutilisation of malleable fittings remained stable, in particular forthose uses where physical durability, resistance as well as aspecific tensile strength and elongation are required. Therefore,any substitution effect cannot have significantly contributed to
the injury suffered by the Community industry as evidenced by
the relatively stable consumption established in the course of thepresent investigation.
4.Conclusion on causation.
(114)In the light of the above, the provisional findings as described in
recitals 155 to 170, of the provisional Regulation on causation
are confirmed.
J.COMMUNITYINTEREST
1.Interest of users
(115)One interested party claimed that the interest of the fire protec-
tion industry had not been duly taken into account.
(116)It should be noted that no users belonging to the fire protectionindustry made themselves known during the investigation. This
fact can be considered in itself as an indication that this sector
is not significantly concerned by the imposition or non-imposi-tion of anti-dumping measures. This conclusion is reinforced bythe findings established for the cooperating users belonging toother sectors, for which the product under consideration repre-sents around 1 % of their total costs.2000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 000.001 — 17
▼B
2.Conclusion on Community interest
(117)In the absence of any further new information on Community
interest and on the basis of the facts available, the findings as
described in recitals 171 to 179 of the provisional Regulationare confirmed.
K.DEFINITIVEANTI-DUMPINGMEASURES
1.Injury elimination level
(118)For the purpose of establishing the level of measures definitively
to be imposed, it is hereby confirmed that the prices of the
dumped imports should be increased to a non-injurious level.On the basis of the injury margin thus established and of thedumping marginsfound, whichever isthe lower in accordancewith Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, the level of duty thenestablished. In the absence of any new information, the metho-
dology used for establishing the injury margin as described in
recital 181 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
2.Croatia and Yugoslavia
(119)Asthe market s haresfound were deminimis it ispropos ed not to
impose any anti-dumping duty on imports of malleable fittingsoriginating in Croatia and Yugoslavia and to terminate theproceeding in respect of imports originating in these countries.
3.Definitive duties
(120)In the light of the foregoing, it iscons idered that a definitive
anti-dumping duty should be imposed on the imports originatingin the remaining countriesconcerned.
(121)Asregardsthe res idual duty to be applied to the noncooperatingexporting producers, in those cases where the level of coopera-tion hasbeen high, the res idual duty wasfixed at the level ofthe highest anti-dumping duty found for the cooperatingexporting producers. In those cases where the level of coopera-
tion hasbeen low, the res idual duty wasfixed at the level of the
highest dumping or injury margin found for a representativerange of exported typesof the cooperating producing exporters ,whichever wasthe lower.
(122)On the basis of the above, the proposed definitive duty rates,
expressed as a percentage of the cif Community border price,
customs duty unpaid, are as follows:
Country CompanyDefinitive
duty
(%)
Brazil Indústria de Fundição Tupy Ltda 34,8
Others34,8
Czech
RepublicMoravské Zelezárny a.s. 26,1
Others26,1
Japan Hitachi MetalsLtd 26,9
Others33,6
Republic of
KoreaYeong Hwa Metal Co. Ltd 13,4
Others23,42000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 000.001 — 18
▼B
Country CompanyDefinitive
duty
(%)
Thailand BIS Pipe Fitting Industry Company Ltd 22,1
Siam FittingsCo. Ltd 12,4
Thai Malleable Iron & Steel Co. Ltd 6,3Others22,1
China All companies49,4
(123)
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'sactivitieslinked to production, domes tic
and export sales associated with, e.g. that name change or that
change 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 .
4.Undertakings
(124)It will be recalled that the exporting producer in the Czech
Republic hasoffered a price undertaking in accordance withArticle 8(1) of the basic Regulation. Subsequent to the imposi-tion of provisional anti-dumping measures, also the exporting
producer in Korea and one of the exporting producersin Thai-
land have offered price undertakingsin accordance with Article8(1) of the basic Regulation. The Commission considers that theundertakingsoffered can be accepted s ince they eliminate theinjuriouseffect of the dumping. Moreover, the regular anddetailed reportswhich the companiesundertook to provide to
the Commission will allow an effective monitoring. Furthermore,
the sales structure of these exporters is such that the Commissionconsiders that there is little risk of circumventing the under-taking offered.
(125)The Japanese exporting producer also made proposals foroffering an undertaking. However, the level of cooperation ofthiscompany throughout the inves tigation, and the accuracyand reliability of the data it had provided waspoor (See recital21). Therefore, the Commission was not, therefore, satisfied that
an undertaking from thiscompany could be effectively moni-
tored. Furthermore, the structure of the company's export sales'sector, with more than one related importer involved, wasconsidered to increase the risk of circumvention. The offerswere therefore rejected.
(126)In order to ensure the effective respect and monitoring of theundertakings, when the request for release for free circulationpursuant to the undertakings is presented, exemption from theduty isconditional upon pres entation to the relevant Member
States' customs' services of a valid undertaking invoice issued
by the exporting producersfrom whom the undertakingsareaccepted and containing the information listed in the Annex.2000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 000.001 — 19
(1) European Commission
Directorate-General for Trade
Directorate C
DM 24 8/38
Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200
B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel.
▼B
Where no such invoice is presented or when it does correspond
to the product presented to the customs' services, the appropriaterate of anti-dumping duty will be payable in order to avoid
circumvention of the undertakings.
(127)In the event of a breach or withdrawal of the undertakingsananti-dumping duty may be imposed, pursuant to Articles 8(9)
and 10 of the basic Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. 1. A definitive anti-dumping duty ishereby impos ed on imports
of threaded malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings, falling within CNcode ex 7307 19 10 (TARIC code 7307 19 10 10) and originating in
Brazil, the Czech Republic, Japan, the People'sRepublic of China, the
Republic of Korea and Thailand.
2. The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net,
free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, shall be as follows forproductsoriginating in:
CountryDefinitive duty
(%)TARIC additional code
Brazil 34,8 —
Czech Republic 26,1 A999
Japan 33,6 A999
People'sRepublic of
China49,4 —
Repubic of Korea 23,4 A999
Thailand 22,1 A999
3. The above ratess hall not apply to the productsmanufactured by
the companies listed below, which shall be subject to the followinganti-dumping duty rates:
Country CompanyDefinitive
duty
(%)TARIC
additional
code
Japan Hitachi MetalsLtd
SeavansNorth
2-1, Shibaura 1-Chome
Minato-Ku
Tokyo 105-8614
Japan26,9 A092
Republic
of KoreaYeong Hwa Metal Co Ltd
363-6, Namyang-dong, Chinhae,
Kyongman
Republic of Korea13,4 A0932000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 000.001 — 20
▼B
Country CompanyDefinitive
duty
(%)TARIC
additional
code
Thailand BIS Pipe Fitting Industry Co Ltd
107 Moo 4, Petchkasem Rd.,
Omnoi, Kratumban
Samutsakorn 74130
Thailand22,1 A094
Siam FittingsCo. Ltd
100/1-100/2, Moo 2, Settakit 1
Road, Omnoi, Krathumban
Samutsakorn 74130
Thailand12,4 A095
Thai Malleable Iron & Steel Co. Ltd
469/19 Rama III Road, Yannawa,
Bangkok 10120
Thailand6,3 A096
4. Notwithstanding Article 1 (1), the definitive duty shall not apply
to importsrealis ed for free circulation in accordance with the provi-sions of Article 2.
5. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning
customs duties shall apply.
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 companiesmentioned in paragraph 3, declared
under the appropriate TARIC additional code and that the conditionsset in paragraph 2 are met.
2. When the request for release for free circulation is presented,
exemption from the duties shall be conditional upon presentation tothe competent Member State's customs services of a valid ‘UndertakingInvoice’ issued by the exporting companies mentioned in paragraph 3containing the essential elements listed in the Annex to this Regulation.
Exemption from the duty shall further be conditional on the goods
declared and presented to customs corresponding precisely to thedescription on the ‘undertaking invoice’.
3. Importsaccompanied by an ‘undertaking invoice’ s hall be
declared under the following TARIC additional codes:
Company CountryTARIC additional
code
Czech Republic Moravské Zelezárny a.s.
Repcinska 86
77900 Olomouc 9
Czech RepublicA097
Republic of
KoreaYeong Hwa Metal Co. Ltd
363-6, Namyang-dong, Chinhae
Kyongman
KoreaA093
Thailand BIS Pipe Fitting Industry Co. Ltd
107 Moo 4, Petchkasem Rd.,
Omnoi, Kratumban
Samutsakorn 74130
ThailandA0942000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 000.001 — 21
▼B
Article 3
The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties
pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 449/2000 shall be collected at the
rate of the duty definitively imposed. Amounts secured in excess of
the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties shall be released. Where thedefinitive duties are higher than the provisional duties, only theamounts secured at the level of the provisional duties shall be defini-tively collected.
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.2000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 000.001 — 22
▼B
ANNEX
Elementsto be indicated in the undertaking invoice referred to in Article 2(2):
1. The Taric additional code under which the goodson the invoice may be
customs-cleared at Community borders (as specified in the Regulation),
2. The exact description of the goods, including:
— the product reporting code number (PRC) (as established in the under-
taking offered by the producing exporter in question), including type
number, diameter, and surface,
— CN code,— quantity (to be given in units),
3. The description of the terms of the sale, including:
— price per unit,
— the applicable payment terms,— the applicable delivery terms,
— total discounts and rebates,
4. Name of the unrelated importer to which the invoice is issued directly by the
company,
5. The name of the official of the company that has issued the undertaking
invoice and the following signed declaration:
‘I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export to the European
Community of the goodscovered by thisinvoice isbeing made within the
scope and under the terms of the undertaking offered by … (company), and
accepted by the European Commission pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 449/
2000 or Decision C(2000) 2452. I declare that the information provided in
thisinvoice iscomplete and correct.’2000R1784 — EN — 19.08.2000 — 000.001 — 23
▼C1