ft ft 
ft ft 
* ft 
ft*ft COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 10* 10% 
COM(%) 8^ final 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) 
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain tube or pipe fittings, 
of iron or steel, originating in the People's Republic of China, Croatia and Thailand, 
and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed 
(presented by the Commission) 

KX PIAN A I OK Y M KMOR A INI) 11M 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 23 18/95(,) imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on 
imports of certain tube or pipe fittings, of iron or steel, originating in the 
People's Republic of China, Croatia and Thailand. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 149/96(2) extended the validity of this duty for a period of 
two months expiring on 4 April 1996. 
Interested parties who so requested were granted hearings and the opportunity to make 
known their views on the provisional and definitive findings 
In their written submission, the cooperating Chinese exporters contested some of the 
preliminary findings of the Commission, in particular, with regard to the like product, 
the choice of Thailand as suitable analogue country to determine normal value, the 
definition of the Community industry, cumulation of the dumped imports, cause of 
injury and Community interest. These comments were examined and, where appropriate, 
taken into account in the final conclusion. However, the arguments put forward by the 
Chinese exporters were not considered to warrant any change in the method used to 
make the provisional assessment of dumping, injury, causation and Community interest. 
In the absence of further evidence from any of the other parties concerned in this 
proceeding, the preliminary findings as set out in Regulation (EC) No 2318/95 are 
confirmed and it is therefore considered in the Community interest to impose definitive 
anti-dumping measures and to collect definitively the provisional duty imposed. 
Provisional measures took the form of anti-dumping duties, imposed in accordance with 
the "Lesser duty rule" at rates based either on the injury or the dumping margin 
established. The provisional duty calculation method being confirmed, definitive anti­
dumping duties should be the same as the amounts of the provisional duties. 
Having been informed of the final results of the investigation, the Croatian and 
Thai producers/exporters offered undertakings within the meaning of Article 10(2)(b) of 
Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88. The Commission considers the undertakings as 
acceptable since they would eliminate the injurious effects of the dumped imports and 
could be satisfactorily monitored. 
The Chinese exporters informed the Commission of their intention to propose 
undertakings together with, allegedly, an offer of the Chinese authorities (MOFTEC) to 
control the exports to the Community. Since no concrete offers by MOFTEC nor by the 
exporters were subsequently received, the Commission considered that it had no 
alternative but to propose the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on the 
Chinese products, and informed the exporters concerned accordingly. 
When the Advisory Committee was consulted on the acceptance of the undertakings 
offered by Croatian and Thai exporters, one Member State raised objections. Therefore, 
in accordance with Articles 9 and 10(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, the 
Commission sent a report to the Council on the results of the consultations and a 
proposal that the investigation be terminated by the acceptance of undertakings. Unless 
the Council decides otherwise within one month, it will be possible to adopt the decision 
accepting the undertakings from the exporters concerned. 
OJ No L 234, 3.10.1995, p. 4. 
OJ No L 23, 30.1.1996, p. 1. 
In these circumstances, the Commission, pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) 
No 2423/88, proposes to the Council to impose residual definitive anti-dumping duties 
on imports from Croatia and Thailand effected by companies other than those having 
offered undertakings. The rates applicable should be 38.4°» foi Croatia and 58 9% for 
Thailand. For the People's Republic of China, a definitive anti-dumping duty at a rate 
of 58.6% should be imposed for all producers and exporters 
The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to 
Regulation (EC) No 2318/95 are proposed to be definitively collected in full. 
The Commission intends, subject to the outcome of the procedure mentioned in point 9 
above, to publish the Decision accepting the undertakings offered by the Croatian and 
Thai exporters at the same time as the Council Regulation. 
Proposal for a 
ÇQUNCJÏ^RlïGUlATJON (EC) 
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain tube or pipe fittings, 
of iron or steel, originating in the People's Republic of China, Croatia and Thailand, 
and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3283/94 of 22 December 1994 on protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community0*, as last 
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1251/95(2), and in particular Article 23 thereof, 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 1 I July 1988 on protection 
against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the 
European Economic Community(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 522/94(4), and in 
particular Article 12 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the 
Advisory Committee, 
Whereas: 
A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES 
(1) The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 2318/95rS|, hereinafter referred to as 
"the provisional duty Regulation", imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports 
into the Community of certain tube or pipe fittings, of iron or steel, originating in the 
People's Republic of China, Croatia and Thailand. 
By Regulation (EC) No 149/96(6), the Council extended the validity of this duty for a 
period of two months expiring on 4 April 1996. 
B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 
(2) Subsequent to the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty, the interested parties 
who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard by the Commission. Some 
of these parties also presented written submissions making known their views on the 
provisional findings. 
<u OJ No L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 1 
OJ No L 122, 2.6.1995, p.l. 
OJ No L 209, 2.8.1988, p. 1. 
OJ No L 66, 10.3.1994, p. 10. 
OJ No L234, 3.10.1995, p. 4. 
OJ No L 23, 30.1.1996, p. 1. 
(3) The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed to be necessary 
for its definitive findings. Upon request, parties were informed of the essential facts and 
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of 
a definitive duty and the definitive collection of amounts secured by way of a 
provisional duty. They were also granted a period within which to make representations 
subsequent to the disclosure. 
(4) The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were examined and, 
where appropriate, were considered in the Commission's definitive findings. 
(5) Owing to the complexity of the investigation and the large volume of data and 
submissions received from the parties concerned, resulting in numerous requests for 
extension of deadlines, which were granted by the Commission when justified by the 
circumstances, the investigation could not be concluded within the period specified in 
Article 7(9) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88. 
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE PRODUCT 
(6) Having excluded stainless steel fittings from the scope of the proceeding for the reasons 
stated in recitals (9) and (10) of the provisional duty Regulation, the Commission had, 
for the purpose of the preliminary findings, determined that all other steel fittings under 
consideration originating in the exporting countries concerned were identical to, or 
closely resembled, those produced and sold in the Community and were to be 
considered "like products" within the meaning of Article 2(12) of Regulation (EEC) 
No 2423/88. 
(7) The two cooperating Chinese exporters and one independent importer of the 
Chinese product (hereinafter called "the Chinese parties") claimed that fittings 
originating in China were, due to their inferior quality, not like products to the fittings 
produced in the Community. Furthermore, it was argued that the range of uses for the 
Chinese product was limited, in that it was often rejected by customers and that it had 
to be reworked in some cases before resale. 
(8) With respect to these arguments, the Commission has established during the 
investigation that while there are some quality differences between the Chinese fittings 
and the Community products, all fittings are manufactured using basically the same 
production technology and in accordance with internationally recognized standards and 
specifications, resulting in products which are alike in their essential physical and 
technical characteristics. It was also established that the Chinese fittings are marketed 
through similar distribution channels, that their basic application and use are identical 
and that there is a high degree of interchangeabilité with the fittings marketed in the 
Community by other operators. Thus, the investigation has shown that the 
Chinese fittings compete with the fittings imported into the Community from Croatia 
and Thailand and with those produced and sold by the Community industry. This applies 
also to those fittings which are resold after reworking. Therefore, the allegations made 
by the Chinese parties with regard to the "like product" issue are rejected. 
(9) As no comments have been presented by the other parties regarding the product under 
consideration and the like product, the findings set out in recitals (7) to (12) of the 
provisional duty Regulation are confirmed. 
D. DUMPING 
1. Normal value 
(a) Choice of analogue country 
(10) One of the cooperating Chinese exporters contested the choice of Thailand as a suitable 
analogue market economy, alleging that the cost of production for the tube or pipe 
fittings concerned in Thailand and in the People's Republic of China were not 
comparable. It was argued that Thailand had no domestic production of steel tubes, 
which are the basic raw material for the manufacture of the fittings in question, and had 
therefore to rely exclusively on imported steel tubes. It was alleged that China, however, 
had a large domestic capacity and production of these steel tubes and that the 
input costs of the Chinese fittings producers for the basic raw material were therefore 
significantly lower compared to those of the Thai producers 
(11) It should first be noted that the Chinese exporter did not produce any evidence to 
substantiate its claim. In addition, no suggestions as to the choice of a more appropriate 
analogue country has been received, neither from the Chinese exporter in question nor 
from any of the other parties concerned. 
(12) Furthermore, it has to be pointed out that the People's Republic of China is a 
non-market economy country, i.e. a country where the means of production, in full or 
in part, belong to or depend on the State. This involvement prevents the establishment 
of reliable domestic prices and costs, which cannot therefore be used for establishing 
normal value. 
(13) As regards more specifically the determination of normal value in Thailand, the 
Commission, at the stage of provisional findings, had already taken account of the 
particular situation of the Thai producers with regard to their supply of steel tubes used 
as the basic raw material for the production of the fittings concerned. In fact, since there 
is no production of steel tubes in Thailand, the entire raw material in the form of steel 
tubes was imported by the Thai producers, and purchased at world market prices. 
The verification on-spot revealed that import charges and indirect taxes were assessed 
on all imported steel tubes. It was found, however, that the charges were refunded in 
respect of those fittings which were exported to the Community. For the purpose of 
ensuring a fair comparison, therefore, and in accordance with Article 2(10)(b) of 
Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, normal value in Thailand was reduced by an amount 
corresponding to import charges and indirect taxes levied on the steel tubes used to 
manufacture the tube fittings concerned which were sold on the domestic market 
in Thailand. 
(b) Final findings on normal value 
(14) As no new evidence has been submitted by the other parties since the imposition of the 
provisional duty, the findings on normal value with regard to all exporting countries 
concerned as set out in recitals (13) to (27) of the provisional duty Regulation are 
therefore considered to be definitive. 
2. Export price 
( 15) Export prices for all producers and exporters of the countries concerned were determined 
as explained in recitals (28) to (31) of the provisional duty Regulation and are, in the 
absence of any relevant new arguments, considered definitive 
3. Comparison 
(16) Normal values, by product type, were compared at an ex-factory level with the export 
price for the corresponding type at the same level of trade, based on a weighted average 
for the entire investigation period. Adjustments were made, where appropriate, in respect 
of differences affecting price comparability, i.e. import charges and indirect taxes, 
transport, insurance, handling and ancillary cost as well as packing, payment terms and 
salesmen's salaries. Since no relevant new information was provided, the findings and 
conclusions as set out in recital (32) of the provisional duty Regulation are therefore 
confirmed. 
4. Dumping margin 
(17) The weighted average dumping margins definitively established for the countries and 
companies in question, expressed as percentages of the CIF Community frontier prices, 
customs duty unpaid, are the following: 
People's Republic of China: 58.6% 
Croatia: 58.6% 
Thailand: 
- Awaji: 39.5% 
- Benkan: 51.3% 
- TTU: 63.4% 
(18) With regard to the dumping margins for producers and exporters of the countries 
concerned which did not cooperate in this proceeding, the findings to apply the highest 
dumping margin found for an exporter in the country concerned as set out in recital (36) 
of the provisional duty Regulation are, in the absence of any new arguments, hereby 
confirmed. 
E. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY 
(19) The Chinese parties challenged the Commission's finding in recital (40) of the 
provisional duty Regulation that the complainant producers represented a major 
proportion of Community production of the fittings in question, and could therefore be 
considered to be the Community industry within the meaning of Article 4(5) of 
Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88. They argued, in particular, that following the exclusion 
of stainless steel fittings and one Italian producer from the scope of the investigation, 
the remaining producers could not be considered sufficiently representative of the 
Community industry. They claimed further that the sales of the complainant producers 
largely comprised purchased fittings from other producers 
(20) With regard to the first argument, the investigation revealed that fittings of stainless 
steel accounted only for a small proportion and were found not to exceed 1% of the 
total production of the complainant producers. 
(21) As far as the exclusion of one complainant producer is concerned, it is confirmed 
that the Italian producer Tectubi, mentioned in recital (5) of the provisional duty 
Regulation, withdrew from the complaint on the grounds that the products it 
manufactured were outside the scope of the investigation and were not imported into the 
Community from the exporting countries concerned. When the Commission determined 
whether the production of the five remaining producers constituted a major proportion 
of the total Community production, the output of this producer was indeed excluded. 
On this basis, the remaining producers supporting the complaint and having cooperated 
represented 85% of the total Community production of the products in question during 
the investigation period. 
(22) With regard to the purchase of fitting types by complainant producers, it should be 
recalled that almost all producers in this particular branch of the industry rely to a 
certain degree on the purchase of certain fitting types for the reasons set out in 
recital (38) of the provisional duty Regulation. In this respect, the investigation revealed 
that, for each of the complainant producers, the volume of purchased fittings for resale 
represented less than 5% of their total production of the products concerned. This clearly 
corresponded to the usual commercial behaviour of producers which had to supplement 
the range of products manufactured by them with a small proportion of imports in order 
to satisfy the requirement of the customers and to compete in the Community market. 
(23) In consideration of the above, the findings laid down in recitals (37) to (40) of the 
provisional duty Regulation with regard to the definition of Community industry are 
confirmed. 
F. INJURY 
1. Cumulation of dumped imports 
(24) The Chinese parties contested the Commission's findings on cumulation of the dumped 
imports and claimed that, due to their inferior quality, fittings from China did not 
compete in the Community market either with fittings manufactured by Community 
producers, or with those imported from Croatia and Thailand. The first aspect of this 
argument has already been dealt with in recitals (7) and (8). 
(25) It was found during the investigation that the products in question imported from China, 
Croatia and Thailand were, on a type-by-type and dimension-by-dimension basis, alike 
in all respects, interchangeable and marketed in the Community within a comparable 
period and under similar commercial policies. The import volumes from each of these 
countries during the period under consideration were significant and the price trends 
similar. 
(26) Under these circumstances and in the absence of any new relevant information, the 
conclusions laid down in recitals (41) to (44) of the provisional duty Regulation with 
regard to cumulation of the dumped imports are confirmed. 
2. Prices of the dumped imports 
(27) Prices of the dumped imports from the exporting countries concerned were found to be 
significantly below the prices charged by the Community producers on the Community 
market during the investigation period. The prices of the exporters concerned were 
compared with the sales prices on the Community market charged by the complainant 
producers, on a per-product-type basis and on the basis of weighted average prices at 
the same level of trade. 
(28) The Chinese parties claimed adjustments in respect of differences in quality between 
their products exported to the Community and those sold by the complainant producers. 
(29) It should be stressed that, as is set out in recital (50) of the provisional duty Regulation, 
the import prices were, for the purpose of a fair comparison at a comparable level of 
trade, adjusted by an importer's mark-up which -was established at 12% in respect of the 
product imported from Croatia and Thailand. In the case of the Chinese product, 
however, an additional adjustment of 7%, estimated on the basis of evidence provided 
regarding the reworking cost of rejected fittings, was granted for such material 
differences and had already been taken into account in establishing the price 
undercutting margins referred to in recital (51) of the provisional duty Regulation. 
(30) The claim made by the Chinese parties has therefore to be rejected and the margins of 
price undercutting established provisionally for all exporting countries are confirmed. 
3. Situation of the Community industry 
(31) It was claimed by the Chinese parties that the Community producers were profitable 
during the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 and therefore suffered no injury. 
(32) With regard to this claim the investigation has shown that all the producers concerned 
were either'in a situation of minimal and reducing profits or recurring losses, with an 
aggravation of these trends during the period of investigation. 
4. Final conclusion on injury 
(33) In the light of the above and in the absence of any other arguments, the conclusions as 
set out in recitals (59) and (60) of the provisional duty Regulation, namely that the 
Community industry has suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 4(1) of 
Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, are confirmed. 
G. CAUSE OF INJURY 
(34) In the provisional duty Regulation, the Commission concluded that the dumped imports 
from the exporting countries in question caused material injury to the Community 
industry, on the grounds that the Community producers had lost 11.5% of the 
Community market between 1989 and the investigation period, while the dumped 
imports had gained 11.8% of the market in the same period. Moreover, almost all 
economic indicators of the Community industry were negative and there was a clear 
coincidence between the increase in dumped imports at low prices undercutting the 
Community producers' prices and the deterioration of the situation of the Community 
industry. 
(35) The Chinese parties claimed that the fittings imported from China could not have caused 
injury to the Community industry because such fittings are, due to their inferior quality, 
not a "like product" within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88. It was also 
claimed that the significant increase in imports of certain fittings of the products 
concerned from other third countries not covered by this proceeding, such as Austria 
and Switzerland, should have been taken into consideration when injury was 
being determined. 
(36) With regard to the first argument, the Chinese fittings and those produced and sold in 
the Community are to be regarded as a like product, as was definitively established in 
recitals (6) to (9). The argument is therefore to be rejected. 
(37) With regard to the increase of certain imports from Austria and Switzerland, it was 
found during the investigation that total imports of the fittings under consideration from 
Switzerland had declined from 2.813 tonnes in 1989 to 2.153 tonnes in 1993, and that 
those originating in Austria were relatively stable at 6.251 tonnes in 1989 and 
6.641 tonnes in 1993. Compared to the evolution of imports from the above countries, 
imports from China had jumped from 451 tonnes in 1989 to 4 146 tonnes in 1993, that 
is to say, by more than 800%. 
(38) Moreover, according to Eurostat data, average prices of imports of the like product from 
Switzerland and Austria and from most of the other third countries not subject to the 
proceeding were found to be significantly higher than those of the dumped imports, and 
there was no indication that the imports from these countries were dumped. It is 
therefore considered unlikely that the imports from other third countries have caused 
injury to the Community industry. In any event, even if they had contributed to the 
injury suffered by the Community industry, the fact remains that the dumped imports 
from the three exporting countries concerned have, taken m isolation, caused material 
injury to the Community industry. 
The preliminary findings with regard to causation as set out in recitals (61) to (69) of 
the provisional duty Regulation are therefore confirmed. 
H. COMMUNITY INTEREST 
(39) As was stated in recital (70) of the provisional duty Regulation, in assessing the 
Community interest, the need to eliminate the trade distorting effects of injurious 
dumping and to restore effective competition should be given special consideration. In 
recital (71) to (75) of the provisional duty Regulation, the Commission, for the purpose 
of the provisional findings, had determined that, in accordance with Article 11 of 
Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures was 
in the interests of the Community. 
(40) The Chinese parties argued that the adoption of anti-dumping measures would not be 
in the interests of the Community user industry. This claim was not substantiated by any 
relevant evidence. In addition, no observations were received from any Community user 
of the product concerned imported from China, Croatia or Thailand following the 
imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties. 
(41) In the absence of any further substantiated evidence, the conclusion reached in 
recital (75) of the provisional duty Regulation, that it is in the Community interest to 
impose anti-dumping measures to eliminate the injurious effects of the dumped imports 
under consideration, is confirmed. 
L UNDERTAKING 
(42) Having been informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it 
was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties, the 
Croatian producer and the three Thai producers which had cooperated in this 
investigation offered undertakings concerning their exports of the products in question 
to the Community. After examination of these offers, the Commission considered the 
undertakings acceptable since they would eliminate the injurious effects of dumping in 
accordance with Article 10(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 and could be 
satisfactorily monitored. 
(43) The Commission consulted the Advisory Committee on the acceptance of these 
undertakings and, since some objections were raised, sent a report on the consultations 
to the Council. In accordance with Articles 9 and 10 (1) of Regulation (EEC) 
No 2423/88, the undertakings offered were accepted by Commission Decision 
96/..../EC(7). 
(44) Notwithstanding the acceptance of the undertakings offered by the Croatian and 
Thai exporters, a residual duty should be imposed on imports of the products concerned 
originating in Croatia and Thailand, in order to underpin the undertakings by avoiding 
their circumvention. 
(45) As far as the People's Republic of China is concerned, the two cooperating 
Chinese exporters informed the Commission, following the disclosure of definitive 
findings, of their intention to propose an offer of an undertaking together with, 
allegedly, an offer from the Chinese authorities (MOFTEC) with regard to the control 
of the exports to the Community. However, no concrete offer from the Chinese 
exporters concerned nor any proposal from the Chinese authorities with a view to 
establishing an export control system was received by the Commission. 
' In these circumstances, it has been concluded that definitive measures with regard to the 
People's Republic of China should be imposed in the form of ad valorem anti-dumping 
duties 
(?) See page of this Official Journal 
10 
J. DUTY 
(46) Provisional measures took the form of ad valorem anti-dumping duties. They were, 
depending on the country concerned, imposed m accordance with the "Eesser duty rule" 
at rates based either on the injury elimination margin or the dumping margin established 
Where the injury margin was lower than the respective dumping margin found, the duty 
was based on this lower level. In all other cases the provisional duty was limited to the 
dumping margin. Since no change was made to the dumping and injury findings, the 
provisional findings as set out in recitals (76) to (82) of the provisional duty Regulation 
are hereby confirmed. 
(47) For exporters in each of the exporting countries concerned who neither replied to the 
Commission's questionnaire nor otherwise made themselves known and in the absence 
of any comments on the approach outlined in recital (81) of the provisional duty 
Regulation, the highest level of duty established for an exporter in the country 
concerned should apply. 
(48) For the reasons outlined in recital (34) of the provisional duty Regulation, a single duty 
has been established for all producers and exporters concerned of the People's Republic 
of China. 
(49) On this basis, definitive anti-dumping duties, in the form of ad valorem duties, should 
be imposed as follows: 
Rate of duty 
- People's Republic of China: 58.6% 
- Croatia. 38.4% 
- Thailand: 58.9%. 
These duties should not apply to imports of the products concerned manufactured and 
exported to the Community by the Croatian and Thai exporters from which undertakings 
have been accepted. 
K. COLLECTION OF PROVISIONAL DUTY 
(50) In view of the level of dumping margins found and the seriousness of the injury caused 
to the Community industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way 
of the provisional anti-dumping duty for all companies should be definitively collected 
in full, 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
Article 
A définitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of tube or pipe fittings 
(other than cast fittings, flanges and threaded fittings), of iron or steel (not including 
stainless steel), with a greatest external diameter not exceeding 609.6 mm, of a kind 
used for butt-welding or other purposes, falling within CN codes ex 7307 93 1 I 
(Taric code 7307 93 11 *90), ex 7307 93 19 (Taric code 7307 93 19*90), ex 7307 99 30 
(Taric code 7307 99 30*91) and ex 7307 99 90 (Taric code 7307 99 90*91) and 
originating in the People's Republic of China, Croatia and Thailand 
11 
2. The rate of duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty 
shall be as follows: 
Rate of duty Taric additional code 
People's Republic of China 58.6% 
Croatia 38.4% 8881 
Thailand 58.9% 8851 
with the exception of imports of the products concerned which are manufactured and 
sold for export to the Community by the following companies from which undertakings 
have been accepted: 
(a) Croatia (Taric additional code 8880): 
- Zeljezara Sisak, Zagreb, 
(b) Thailand (Taric additional code 8850): 
- Awaji Sangyo (Thailand) Co. Ltd., Samutprakarn, 
- Thai Benkan Co. Ltd., Prapadaeng-Samutprakarn, 
- TTU Industrial Corp. Ltd., Bangkok. 
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties 
shall apply. 
Article 2 
The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to 
Regulation (EC) No 2318/95 shall be definitively collected in full 
Article 3 
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. 
Done at Brussels, For the Council 
The President 
12 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(96) 83 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 02 11 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-96-091-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-00987-3 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
13