COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 24.10.1997 
COM(97) 535 final 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) 
imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and 
tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech 
Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 
11S9/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the 
Republic of Croatia 
(presented by the Commission) 

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
(1) On 31 August 1996, the Commission opened two parallel anti-dumping 
investigations in respect of imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes: 
- an interim review investigation of the existing measures concerning Hungary, 
Poland and the Republic of Croatia; 
- a new investigation with regard to Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the 
Slovak Republic, following a complaint lodged by the Community industry 
concerned. 
(2) On 31 May 1997, having established the existence of injurious dumping, the 
Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 981/971, imposed a provisional duty on all 
imports subject to the new investigation. 
(3) For its definitive findings, the Commission analysed the information gathered for 
both investigations jointly. This analysis leads to the conclusion that protective 
measures, in the form of ad valorem duties, are warranted in respect of Hungary, 
Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic. However, 
measures in respect of Croatia should be repealed. 
1 OJNoL 141,31.5.1997, p. 36. 
(4) Having been informed of the Commission's intention to propose to the Council the 
imposition of definitive duties, the Hungarian, Polish, Czech, Romanian and Slovak 
producers listed below have offered price undertakings. In substance, the producers 
offer to sell their product for export to the Community at revised prices so that the 
injurious effect of dumping is eliminated. Further, they offer to ensure that the prices 
of their products will follow a price structure in use in the Community for the trading 
of the seamless steel tubes concerned. 
These undertakings have been offered in relation to annual quantities exempted from 
the ad valorem duty. If these quantities are exceeded, the duty would apply. 
(5) Having verified that this system is workable and can be effectively monitored, the 
Commission is of the opinion that these undertakings are acceptable. 
(6) In respect of Russia, the Commission also examined the undertakings offered by 
three of the six Russian companies exporting to the Community. However, as Russia 
is a non market economy country, such offers require guarantees from the Russian 
authorities to allow effective monitoring. Having received no adequate assurances 
from the Russian authorities, the Commission is obliged to reject the undertakings 
offered by the three companies concerned. 
(7) In the light of the above, and in accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation 
(EC) No 384/96, the Commission therefore proposes that the Council impose 
definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes 
originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the 
A. 
Slovak Republic, with the exception of those produced and sold for export by the 
companies for which undertakings are accepted. For the Republic of Croatia, it is 
suggested that measures be repealed and the proceeding accordingly terminated for 
this country. Finally, in view of the nature of the definitive measures imposed, 
provisional duties should be released. 
Country Company Rate of duty 
Hungary Csepel Tubes Co. Ltd. 36.5% 
Others 36.5% 
Poland ~ Huta Batory SA 7.1% 
Huta Andrzej SA 30.1% 
Huta Czestochowa 30.1% 
Huta Jednosc SA 30.1% 
Others 30.1% 
Russia All companies 26.8% 
Czech Republic Vftkovice a.s. 5.1% 
Nova Hut a.s. 5.1% 
VT Chomutov a.s. 28.6% 
Others 28.6% 
Romania SC Artrom SA 9.8% 
SC Silcotub SA 9.8% 
SC Petrotub SA 9.8% 
SC Republica SA Trade Co. 9.8% 
Others 38.2% 
Slovak Republic Zeleziarne Podbrezovâ a.s. 7.5% 
Others 7.5% 
All companies named above, with the exception of the Czech producers, Vitkovice 
a.s. and Nova Hut a.s., have offered acceptable undertakings. 
<±é> 
(8) When the Advisory Committee was consulted on the acceptance of the undertakings 
offered, some objections were made. Therefore, in.accordance with Article 8 (5) of 
Regulation (EC) No 384/96, 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. 
^ 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) NO 
of 
imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and 
tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech 
Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 
1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the 
Republic of Croatia 
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 members of the European 
Community1, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2331/962, and in particular Article 
9 (4) thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the 
Advisory Committee, 
Whereas: 
1 OJ No L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. 
2 OJ No L 317, 6.12.1996, p. 1. 
A. PROCEDURE 
(1) By Regulation (EEC) No 1189/933, the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping 
duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel 
originating in Hungary, Poland and the Republic of Croatia. The rate of the duty 
was 21.7% for Hungary, 10.8% for Poland and 17.4% for the Republic of Croatia. 
In addition, the Commission accepted undertakings4 offered by the Hungarian, 
Polish and Croatian exporters. 
(2) On 31 August 1996, the Commission announced by a notice published in the 
Official Journal of the European Communities5 the initiation of an interim review 
of Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 in respect of imports of certain seamless pipes 
and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland and the 
Republic of Croatia and commenced an investigation pursuant to Article 11 (3) of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (hereinafter referred to as "the basic 
Regulation"). 
(3) This interim review investigation was initiated in parallel with an investigation 
opened on the same date6 in respect of such imports originating in Russia, the 
Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic following a complaint lodged 
by the Defence Committee of the Seamless Steel Tube Industry of the European 
Union. 
3OJNoL120, 15.5.1993, p. 34. 
4OJNoL120, 15.5.1993, p. 42. 
5 OJ No C253,31.8.1996, p. 25. 
6OJNoC253, 31.8.1996, p. 26. 
(4) By Regulation (EC) No 981/977 (hereinafter referred to as the "provisional 
Regulation"), the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports 
into, the Community of the product in question originating in Russia, the Czech 
Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic. 
(5) Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping measures certain 
interested parties submitted comments in writing. 
Those parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard by the 
Commission. 
The Commission continued to seek and verify all information deemed necessary for 
its definitive findings. 
(6) On 22 May 1997, the Association Councils established under the Agreements 
between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part and 
the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic, respectively, of the other 
part were informed by letter of the Commission's intention to impose provisional 
measures. 
The Czech, Romanian and Slovak authorities all objected that the Commission had 
acted in breach of the Europe Agreement (and in particular Article 34 (2) thereof) 
by failing to hold consultations either before the proceeding was initiated, or 
immediately after the initiation, or prior to the imposition of provisional duties. 
7OJNoL 141, 31.5.1997, p. 36. 
It should be recalled that, when a complaint is received, the Commission has to 
investigate the allegations contained therein. If the Commission is satisfied that the 
complainant has provided sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation, it is 
obliged, under the provisions of its own anti-dumping legislation, to open a 
proceeding. Regarding the Community's legal obligations under the Europe 
Agreements, it is considered that these have been met in full. The Agreements state 
that the Association Councils have to be informed of any dumping case as soon as 
the authorities of the importing country have initiated an investigation. This 
requirement was met by the Commission. * 
Furthermore, the Europe Agreements state that if no satisfactory solution has been 
reached within 30 days of the matter being referred to an Association Council, the 
importing party may adopt the appropriate measures. Since no solution was found 
within the required time, the Commission was entitled to take measures, as 
appropriate, which it did on 31 May 1997. The actual decision to impose 
provisional duties was not taken until 21 May, only shortly before the statutory 
deadline expired. Nonetheless, the Commission immediately informed the 
Association Council and provided it with the data on the basis of which the 
decision had been made. Consultations, first with the country authorities and then 
with the exporters/producers themselves were started within a matter of days and 
were pursued throughout the investigation with a view to reaching a mutually 
acceptable solution. Therefore, the Community has fully complied with the 
requirements of the Europe Agreements, and in particular with Article 34 (2) and 
34 (3) (b) thereof. 
(7) In the interim review investigation, the Commission officially advised the 
Hungarian, Polish and Croatian producers/exporters, and the importers known to be 
concerned, the representatives of the exporting countries and the complainant, and 
gave the parties directly concerned the opportunity to make their views known in 
writing and to request a hearing. The interested parties who so requested were 
granted an opportunity to be heard by the Commission. They also made written 
submissions, making known their views on the findings. 
(8) The Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and 
received replies from the complaining Community producers, from five companies 
in the Czech Republic, from seven companies in Romania, from one company in 
the Slovak Republic and from six companies in Russia, from one company in 
Hungary, from six companies in Poland and from one company in the Republic of 
Croatia. The Commission also received replies from four unrelated importers in the 
Community, from a Community importer related to one Czech company and from 
two importers related to the Slovak producer, one of which was located in the 
Community and the other in Switzerland. 
Verification visits, with regard to both investigations, were carried out at the 
following companies: 
Community producers 
- Voest Alpine, Kindberg, Austria 
- Vallourec Industries, Boulogne-Billancourt, France 
- Benteler AG, Paderborn, Germany 
- Mannesmannrôhren-Werke AG, Mûlheim an der Ruhr, Germany 
- Dalmine S.p.A., Dalmine, Italy 
- Productos Tubulares S.A., Valle de Trapaga, Spain 
- Tubos Reunidos S.A., Amurrio, Spain * 
- Ovako Steel AB Tube Division, Hofors, Sweden. 
- ESW Rôhrenwerke GmbH, Eschweiler, Germany 
- Rohrwerk Neue Maxhtitte GmbH, Sulzbach-Rosenberg, Germany. 
Importers not related to exporters 
- Jannone ARM S.p.A., Naples, Italy 
- Geminvest S.R.L., Limbiate, Italy 
- Starval, Marly La Ville, France 
- Voest Alpine Stahlhandel AG, Linz, Austria. 
Exporters and importers/trading companies subject to the new investigation 
Importer related to two Czech producers: 
- Topham Eisen und Stahlhandelges.m.b.H., Vienna, Austria. 
Importers related to the Slovak producer: 
- Pipex International AG, Nidau, Switzerland 
- Pipex Italia S.p.A., Milan, Italy (a subsidiary of the above). 
Exporters in the Czech Republic 
- Vftkovice a.s. and Vftkovice Export a.s., Ostrava 
- Nova Hut a.s., Ostrava 
- Valcovny Trub Dioss and Dioss Trading, Chomutov. 
- Ferromet Long Products Ltd., Prague (trading company related to Nova Hut) 
- Incos s.r.o., Prague (unrelated trading company). 
Exporters in Romania 
- SC Artrom SA, Slatina 
- SC Silcotub SA, Zalau 
- SC Petrotub SA, Roman 
- SC Republica SA Trade Company, Bucharest 
- Intertube Ltd., Bucharest (trader related to SC Republica SA) 
- SC Metalexportimport SA, Bucharest (unrelated exporter/trader) 
- Sota Company, Bucharest (unrelated exporter/trader). 
Exporters in the Slovak Republic 
- Zeleziarne Podbrezovâ a.s., Podbrezovâ. 
Exporters subject to the review investigation 
Exporter in Hungary 
Csepel Tubes Co. Ltd., Budapest 
Exporters in Poland 
Huta Andrzej SA, Zawadzkie 
Huta Batory SA, Chorzôw 
Stalexport SA (related trader), Katowice 
Exporter in the Republic of Croatia 
Zeljezara Sisak, Sisak Steel Pipe Works, Sisak. 
In the course of the investigation, the Croatian exporter informed the Commission 
that the company had changed its name to Zeljezara Sisak - Sisak Tubemills Ltd. 
The Commission concluded that the change in name in no way affected the 
findings established in the investigation. 
(9) For both investigations, dumping was examined for the period from 1 September 
1995 to 31 August 1996, "the investigation period". The examination of injury, and 
of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, covered the period from 
January 1992 to the end of the investigation period. 
(10) All parties concerned were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the 
basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive measures 
or the amendment of existing definitive measures. They were also granted a period 
within which to make representations and/or to offer undertakings subsequent to 
these disclosures. 
B. PRODUCT UNDER INVESTIGATION 
1. Product concerned 
(11) The product subject to both investigations is: 
a) seamless pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel, of a kind used for oil or gas 
pipelines, of an external diameter not exceeding 406.4 mm, 
b) seamless tubes of circular cross-section, of iron or non-alloy steel, cold-
drawn or cold-rolled, other than precision tubes, and 
c) other tubes of circular cross-section, of iron or non-alloy steel, other than 
threaded or threadable, of an external diameter not exceeding 406.4 mm 
currently classifiable under CN codes 7304 10 10, 7304 10 30, 7304 31 99, 7304 
39 91 and 7304 39 93. 
In line with the position previously adopted by the Council8, and as confirmed in 
recital (10) of the provisional Regulation, all seamless pipes and tubes falling 
within the above-mentioned CN codes are considered as one product (hereinafter 
referred to as the "product concerned") for the purpose of both the new 
investigation and the review investigation. 
2. Like product 
(12) All seamless pipes and tubes subject to both investigations were found to be alike 
in their essential physical and technical characteristics and in their end uses, 
irrespective of whether they are manufactured in the Community or in the countries 
subject to the investigations. 
Some exporters argued that their products should not be considered as like products 
with those of the Community producers or those of other exporting producers on 
the grounds that there were quality and technical differences, as well as differences 
in the distribution channels, use and perception by the market. 
8 OJNoL 120, 15.5.93, p. 34 
10 
It was found, however, that the product concerned is distributed through similar 
channels. Basic application and overall use are similar. There is a high degree of 
interchangeability, and consequently of competition, between all imported products 
subject to both investigations and those manufactured by the Community 
producers. It was also established that the basic technical and physical 
characteristics of all these imported products, despite minor differences, were 
identical to, or closely resembled, those of the products manufactured by 
Community producers. 
In conclusion, the products originating in the various countries covered by the 
investigation and those produced and sold in the Community are considered like 
products within the meaning of Article 1 (4) of the basic Regulation. 
C. DUMPING 
Anti-dumping investigation 
1. Czech Republic 
(a) Cooperation 
(13) The company ruled to be non-cooperating subsequently wrote to the Commission 
to object to this treatment, claiming that the provisions of Article 18 were not 
applicable to it. It stressed that there had been no intention to mislead and argued 
11 
that the company had acted to the best of its ability; this meant that even though the 
domestic and export sales listings, credit note listings, customer turnover figures 
and cost of production information were admitted to be far from ideal, the 
Commission was duty bound not to disregard them. It also criticised the 
Commission for not taking sufficiently into account the privatisation difficulties 
experienced by the company and the special problems of the Czech Republic in its 
transition to market economy status. Finally, it argued that since the company had 
changed ownership in April 1997 (having ceased production the previous month), it 
Would be unfair to impose sanctions on the new owner. 
The reasons which led the Commission to consider one of the Czech companies as 
not cooperating with the investigation are set out in recital (14) of the provisional 
Regulation. It is worth recalling here that the listings submitted to the Commission 
in the company's reply to the questionnaire were found at the verification to 
contain several hundred domestic and export transactions which had never taken 
place. This was not only highly misleading but meant that the Commission was 
unable to establish, with any degree of certainty, either a reliable normal value or a 
reliable export price. Whatever the reasons for this (and at this point the 
Commission would point out that the explanation originally provided by the 
company was totally unsatisfactory and completely different from the one it 
submitted later in writing), it cannot be said to be in accordance with generally 
accepted accounting principles. In the circumstances, the Commission had no other 
choice than to reject the reply and to apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation, not 
least because to have acted otherwise would have been to discriminate against 
other, fully cooperating, companies in the investigation. 
12 
As regards the matter of the change of ownership, since it occurred after the end of 
the investigation period it is not a factor which can be considered relevant to this 
proceeding (see Article 6 (1) of the basic Regulation). 
(b) Normal value 
(14) One of the Czech producers questioned the methodology employed by the 
Commission to determine normal value for one product group (see recital (16) of 
the provisional Regulation); in particular, it claimed that there was nothing in the 
basic Regulation which justified the Commission calculating normal value on the 
basis of the average of profitable sales only instead of the average of all sales in the 
group. The same producer objected to the Commission's use, in constructing 
normal value for certain groups, of a profit margin achieved on profitable domestic 
sales in other product groups. 
This request could not be accepted since it is in contradiction with both the basic 
Regulation and the Community institutions' consistent practice. With regard to the 
first point, where the volume of domestic sales below unit cost represents more 
than 20% of sales, normal value is based on the profitable sales only, in accordance 
with the third paragraph of Article 2 (4) of the basic Regulation. With regard to the 
second point, the Commission acted in accordance with Article 2 (6) of the basic 
Regulation by applying the profit margin on sales 'in the ordinary course of trade, 
of the like product, by the exporter or producer under investigation'. 
13 
One producer also objected to the substitution of its own selling, general and 
administrative (hereinafter referred to as SG&A) expenses by those of its related 
company (see recital (16) of the provisional Regulation) on the grounds that such 
expenses should be based on 'actual data' relating to the producer under 
investigation, in accordance with Article 2 (6) of the basic Regulation. The 
Commission considered that the relevant accounting documents submitted by the 
producer insufficiently supported the figures submitted in its reply to the 
questionnaire. After being notified of the Commission's intentions, the company 
provided further explanations and tables but, since these constituted additional 
information which was not verifiable, the information could not be taken into 
account. 
Both cooperating producers queried the removal from the transaction listings of 
sales made to each other on the grounds that they were not related and that, even if 
they were, the Commission had failed to show that the prices were affected by the 
relationship. 
This could not be accepted. Since both companies have a common shareholder (see 
recital (22) of the provisional Regulation and recital (17) below), they are related. 
Furthermore, Article 2 (1) of the basic Regulation clearly states that 'prices 
between parties which appear to be associated (...) may not be considered to be in 
the ordinary course of trade (...) unless it is determined that they are unaffected by 
the relationship'. Since it was not established that this was the case, the disputed 
transactions were not reinstated. 
14 
No further, comments were received in respect of normal value and the Council 
therefore confirms the findings as set out in the provisional Regulation. 
(c) Export price 
(15) No comments were received concerning the determination of the export price. 
Nonetheless a small adjustment to the profit margin deduction was made in respect 
of the related Austrian importer (see recital (18) of the provisional Regulation) after 
reviewing the profit margins achieved by unrelated importers during the course of 
the investigation. 
(d) Comparison 
(16) No comments were received under this heading and the Commission's findings are 
therefore confirmed. 
(e) Dumping margin 
(17) The cooperating companies objected to the Commission's decision to establish the 
dumping margin on the basis of a comparison of weighted average normal values 
with individual export prices (rather than weighted average export prices), arguing 
that the Commission had failed to provide sufficient justification for its approach at 
recital (21) of the provisional Regulation. 
15 
In that Regulation, the Commission stated that its approach was justified by the 
need to reflect the full degree of dumping being practised and because there was a 
pattern of export prices which differed significantly between Member States and 
between time periods. The Commission has reviewed its calculations and 
concluded that the variations in export prices between countries did not display a 
sufficiently clear pattern. However, the Commission stands by its finding that there 
was a pattern of export prices between time periods which led to a significant 
increase in dumping (constituting a clear pattern) after the, expiry of quantitative 
restrictions on 31 December 1995, and the approach adopted in the provisional 
Regulation is therefore confirmed. 
The Commission's decision to treat both cooperating producers as being related, 
and the consequent establishment of a single dumping margin for them, was 
strongly objected to on the grounds that both companies were managed 
independently of each other and had different cost and pricing structures. It was 
further argued that the majority shareholder (the National Property Fund) acted 
merely as a trustee and had no influence over the commercial management of the 
companies. 
The Commission takes the view that in a market economy country it is up to the 
majority shareholder to decide in which legal form it organises its business interests 
in the exporting country. Its control, or potential control, over such interests is 
16 
normally the same if they are part of one legal entity or if they are organised in 
different legal entities. More specifically, to establish different dumping margins 
for related companies entails the risk that exports may be channelled through the 
company with the lowest dumping margin. For this reason it was concluded that 
different producers in the exporting country must nevertheless be treated as one 
single entity for the purposes of this proceeding where control of all those 
companies lies in the hands of the same shareholder. 
(18) On the basis of the Commission's provisional findings, described in recitals (14)-
(23) of the provisional Regulation, and taking into account the adjustment 
described at recital (15) above, the definitive dumping margins expressed as a 
percentage of the OF free Community frontier value of imports established for the 
two cooperating companies are: 
- Nova Hut a.s. 5.1% 
- Vftkovice a.s. 5.1% 
The calculation of the residual dumping margin was revised. Instead of taking the 
highest normal values found for the two Czech producers, weighted average normal 
values have been used in the final determination. On this basis the residual 
dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the CIF free Community frontier 
value of imports established for the two cooperating companies is now 28.6%. 
17 
2. Romania 
(a) Normal value 
(19) One company claimed that cost provisions included in the SG&A costs of the 
company should be removed in view of the fact that unused provisions were 
cancelled at the end of the year. Where provisions were indeed cancelled and no 
other cost had then replaced such provisions, and insofar as it could be clearly seen 
from information contained in the response to the questionnaire or provided during 
the on-spot verification that provisions did not represent a real cost, the calculation 
of SG&A costs was adjusted. 
One company made a claim that cost of production should be adjusted to reflect the 
absence of selling costs, principally for packing, incurred for sales made on the 
domestic market. It was argued that with regard to such selling costs, included in 
the calculation of normal value by the Commission, the company had in fact been 
reimbursed by its customers. The Commission accepted this and an appropriate 
revision has therefore been made to the cost of production calculation for this 
company. 
18 
One company claimed that the Commission when establishing normal value should 
use all sales including those not made in the ordinary course of trade, i.e. sales 
made at a loss. The Commission, in view of Article 2 (4) of the basic Regulation, 
considered that sales made at a loss have to be excluded from the establishment of 
normal value where such sales constitute more than 20% of all domestic sales. The 
claim by this company could therefore not be accepted, given the terms of the basic 
Regulation and the institutions' consistent practice in the establishment of normal 
value. 
Two companies argued that in order to respect the Europe Agreement, the 
Commission should in establishing normal values always choose the method most 
favourable to the companies, citing Article 34 (2) of the Agreement. This argument 
was rejected, as Article 34 (2) of the Agreement refers only to the choice of 
measures to be imposed by the Commission once, dumping, injury, causality and 
Community interest have been established, and not to the actual calculation 
methodologies used in the determination. 
One company claimed only at a very late stage in the proceeding (at the hearing for 
comments on provisional disclosure) that sales from stock should be excluded from 
the calculation of normal value as not possessing quality certificates and therefore 
not constituting the like product, and that all sales made using compensation as 
means of payment should likewise be excluded as not being in the ordinary course 
19 
of trade. These claims were not made in a timely manner, having neither been made 
in the response to the questionnaire, nor on-spot, nor at any subsequent stage of the 
proceeding when the company was invited to make comments. In no document 
submitted by the company was the Commission able to differentiate between sales 
made from stock or otherwise, or between sales made with or without quality 
certificates. In addition, during the course of the investigation, it was found that 
sales made using compensation were indeed made in the ordinary course of trade. 
Consequently, both claims were rejected. 
No further comments were received. Taking into account the changes referred to 
above, the findings with regard to normal value as disclosed in the provisional 
Regulation are confirmed. 
(b) Export price 
(20) No changes were made to the methodology used to calculate export prices. The 
findings with regard to export prices as disclosed in the provisional Regulation are 
therefore confirmed. 
(c) Comparison 
(21) For the provisional findings, the Commission rejected a request by two Romanian 
companies for an adjustment to the normal value for credit terms. The two 
companies reiterated their request. However, it was established during the 
20 
investigation that, in the vast majority of cases in Romania, no actual cash changed 
hands in the settlement of transactions. In fact, payment was usually effected by 
'compensation', consisting either of barter trade or the exchange of trade bills. 
Article 2 (10) (g) of the basic Regulation specifies that an adjustment shall be made 
for credit, provided that it is a factor taken into account in the determination of the 
prices charged. The investigation showed that such costs were not a factor taken 
into account in the determination of prices charged. In fact, where compensation 
was the means of payment, no money changed hands and there was therefore no 
impact on the financial situation of the companies. In addition, the investigation 
showed that for all means of payment, - dates of settlement were normally not 
respected. The claims for a credit adjustment were therefore rejected again. 
One company claimed that for export sales made to certain customers in the 
European Community, no commission had been paid and that no adjustment to the 
export prices charged to those customers should be made. The Commission revised 
its calculations accordingly. 
One company claimed an adjustment to normal value for differences in level of 
trade. As such a claim was not made at any point in the investigation prior to the 
company's comments on the provisional findings of the Commission, it could not 
be considered valid. It was, furthermore, not substantiated by any evidence and was 
in contradiction with information the company had reported in its reply to the 
questionnaire and provided during the on-spot verification. 
21 
No further comments were received with respect to comparison. The provisional 
findings are therefore confirmed. 
(d) Dumping margin 
(22) One company claimed that the calculation of the dumping margin should not be 
made on the basis of a comparison of weighted average normal values with the 
adjusted export price of each corresponding group on a transaction-by-transaction 
basis, but on a weighted average to weighted average basis. 
This claim was rejected after the methodology used for all Romanian companies 
was reconsidered and it was found that: 
- for one company, there was no difference in dumping margin between both 
methods as all export transactions were made at dumped prices; 
- for three companies, a pattern of export prices which differed significantly by 
destination or time period was found. 
In view of the above, and in accordance with Article 2 (11) of the basic Regulation, 
the method comparing the weighted average normal value by time period to 
individual adjusted export prices on a transaction-by-transaction basis was retained 
for the purposes of the definitive determination. 
22 
All cooperating Romanian producers/exporters contested the fact that the 
Commission had - on the grounds of a common majority shareholding - imposed a 
single dumping margin, and they accordingly claimed individual treatment. For the 
reasons set out in recital (17), this request could not be accepted. 
Two companies argued that the Commission should have disclosed to them all 
elements of the dumping calculations for all companies, since these had been used 
to establish the global dumping margin; by failing to do so, the Commission would 
had infringed their rights of defence. The Commission has, in accordance with 
Article 20 (1) of the basic Regulation, explained in detail to each company the 
essential facts and considerations on which it calculated that company's individual 
dumping margin and furthermore explained the methodology used to establish the 
single dumping margin. As all companies have the same majority shareholder, they 
can easily exchange all information via that common shareholder and thus fully 
exercise their rights of defence. 
No further comments were received. The findings as disclosed in the provisional 
Regulation are therefore confirmed. 
(23) The weighted average dumping margins definitively established for the four 
cooperating producers expressed as a percentage of the CIF free Community 
frontier value of imports are: 
23 
SCArtromSA 9.8% 
SCPetrotubSA 9.8% 
SC Republica SA Trade Company 9.8% 
SCSilcotubSA 9.8% 
The residual dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the CIF free Community 
frontier value of imports remains unchanged at 38.2%. 
3. Slovak Republic 
(a) Normal value 
(24) The Slovak producer questioned the methodology employed by the Commission to 
determine normal value for two product groups (see recital (31) of the provisional 
Regulation); in particular, it claimed that the Commission was wrong to have 
calculated normal value on the basis of the average of profitable sales only, and that 
it should have taken the average of all sales in the groups instead. The reason it 
gave was that the groups were profitable overall and therefore all costs were 
recovered over the investigation period on a weighted average basis. In addition, it 
was argued, citing Article 34 (2) of the Europe Agreement, that the Commission 
should have used its discretion to adopt a method which 'least disturb[s] the 
functioning of [that] Agreement'. 
24 
Both these arguments were rejected for the same reasons given at recital (19) 
above. 
No further comments with respect to normal value were received and the 
Commission's findings as disclosed in the provisional Regulation are therefore 
confirmed. 
(b) Export price 
(25) The company objected to the Commission's construction of the export price (see 
recital (32) of the provisional Regulation), and in particular to its decision to deduct 
a 4% profit margin from the prices charged by its Italian subsidiary. It argued that 
this margin was excessive and that the Commission should have used the Italian 
company's own figures. It also claimed that the Commission had misinterpreted the 
SG&A figures submitted by the company, and that the effect of this had been to 
increase its SG&A rate and consequently the dumping margin. It also suggested 
that a more correct approach would have been to consolidate both companies' 
SG&A expenses and apply a single rate. 
25 
The Commission based the margin of 4% on the average of the profit margins 
achieved by the four unrelated importers listed at recital (6) (c) of the provisional 
Regulation. However, it has reviewed the figures and concluded that, for the 
purposes of the definitive determination, an adjusted figure of 3.8% should be 
applied. Although it was objected that two of the four importers were in fact related 
to Community producers, the Commission satisfied itself that the profit margins 
found for these companies reflected the profit on their sales to independent 
customers in the Community. With regard to the SG&A rate, the Commission 
reviewed the figures and concluded not only that the expenses had indeed been 
overstated, but also that it would have been more appropriate to consolidate the 
Swiss and Italian trading companies' figures, given that they had a similar 
relationship with the Slovak exporter and operated mostly out of the same 
premises. A global SG&A rate has accordingly been applied. 
(c) Comparison 
(26) The company had claimed a 'distribution channel allowance' which the 
Commission, it said, had failed to take account of in its provisional determination. 
26 
It argued that such an allowance was justified in order to reflect the fact that the 
company sold directly-to stockists on its domestic market whereas it sold through 
its related Italian and Swiss companies on the Community market; it also argued 
that the allowance was necessary to ensure a fair comparison with the constructed 
export sales price. 
This claim is covered under the discounts and quantities allowance already granted 
to the company. Article 2 (10) of the basic Regulation explicitly states that '[a]ny 
duplication when making adjustments shall be avoided, in particular in relation to 
discounts, rebates, quantities and level of trade'. Since the normal value has already 
been adjusted downwards to reflect the fact that sales in the Community were 
mainly to large customers, there is no justification for granting a further allowance. 
No further comments were received and the Commission's findings are therefore 
confirmed. 
(d) Dumping margin 
(27) The company objected to the Commission's decision to establish the dumping 
margin on the basis of a comparison of weighted average adjusted normal values 
with adjusted individual export prices (rather than weighted average export prices), 
arguing that the Commission had failed to provide sufficient justification for its 
approach at recital (34) of the provisional Regulation. 
27 
Whilst the Commission stands by its reasoning set out at the above-mentioned 
recital, the modifications it has since made to the figures used to calculate the 
dumping margin have resulted in the difference between the two methods no longer 
being of such a magnitude as to justify its original approach. It has therefore 
decided, for the purposes of the definitive determination, to revert to the method of 
. comparing the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export 
price. The provisional findings have been amended accordingly. 
(28) On the basis of the Commission's previous findings, described in recitals (31)-(35) 
of the provisional Regulation, and taking into account the changes referred to 
abovo, the dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the CIF free Community 
• » 
frontier value of imports established for the cooperating producer is: 
Zeleziarne Podbrezovâ a.s. 7.5%. 
The residual dumping margin is set at the same level. 
4. Russia 
(a) Cooperation 
(29) Five of the six Russian companies wrote to the Commission to object to its 
decision to treat them as non-cooperating. The reasons for the Commission's 
28 
decision are set out in recital (36) of the provisional Regulation. The companies 
argued that, despite any deficiencies the replies may have contained, they 
themselves had been willing to cooperate with the investigation and had been ready 
to supply any additional information the Commission might have required. Certain 
companies requested individual treatment, or offered to subscribe to an individual 
undertaking, or asked for their comparative advantages to be taken into 
consideration. 
The Commission, however, remains of the view that, by failing to provide 
information which was accurate, complete, and in the form requested, the Russian 
companies have forfeited their right to be considered as cooperating parties in the 
investigation. Although it is not disputed that some replies were more detailed than 
o 
others, they were all deficient in one, overriding respect: they did not allow the 
Commission to arrive at an accurate determination either of normal value or of the 
export price because of the way in which individual products and transactions had 
been grouped together. Some companies submitted further information subsequent 
to the Commission informing them of its decision to apply Article 18 of the basic 
Regulation, and some continued to submit new or revamped information even after 
the publication of the provisional Regulation. The fact remains, though, that the 
information in the Commission's possession at the time of the deadline for 
submitting replies was deemed insufficient in respect of all six companies. It would 
be discriminatory to other interested parties cooperating with the investigation if 
information were taken into account which was submitted days, weeks and 
sometimes months after the deadline for submitting it has passed. 
29 
The Commission's findings are therefore confirmed. 
(b) Dumping margin 
(30) The Commission recalculated the Russian dumping margin using the same normal 
values as were used in revising the Czech residual margin (see recital (18)). On this 
basis a dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the CIF free Community 
frontier value of imports of 26.8% was established. 
Review investigation 
1. General 
(31) The producers/exporters in Poland and Hungary failed to provide detailed 
information on individual products as requested by the Commission in the product 
description table included in all questionnaires sent, but presented it split into 
product groups, covering a range of products, classified together by reference to 
certain criteria e.g. wall thicknesses. In some cases, therefore, the groups contained 
products classified under different CN codes. For this reason, and because of the 
impossibility of collecting more detailed information on-the-spot, the Commission 
could only base its calculations on product groups, rather than on individual 
products. 
30 
2. Hungary 
(a) Normal value 
(32) During the investigation period, the sole Hungarian producer/exporter sold four 
product groups in the European Community. Groups 1, 2, and 3 fell entirely under 
CN code 7304 39 91, whereas group 4 included a mix of models partly falling 
under CN code 7304 39 91, and partly under CN code 7304 39 93. The technical 
information provided and verified was not detailed enough to enable the 
Commission to split product group 4 into the two CN codes. Taking into account 
that Eurostat statistics showed considerable imported quantities falling under CN 
code 7304 39 93 for the investigation period, and that only one Hungarian 
producer/exporter had sold the product concerned to the European Community 
during the same period, the Commission considered product group 4 as falling 
entirely under CN code 7304 39 93. 
It was found on-the-spot that the detailed export figures provided by the company 
were unreliable as one Community customer, accounting for 7% of the reported 
sales to the European Community of the product concerned, had been omitted and 
the computer file of export transactions was also found to be incorrect in other 
respects, a deficiency the company could not correct. The 5% global 
representativity test was then performed by comparing the quantities sold 
31 
domestically with Eurostat import statistics from Hungary, which the Commission 
selected as an independent source of information, in accordance with Article 18 (5) 
of the basic Regulation. On this basis it was determined that in all cases the 
domestic sales could be considered representative for the establishment of normal 
value, both globally and at product group level, in accordance with Article 2 (2) of 
the basic Regulation. 
For each of the four groups mentioned above, it was then determined whether 
domestic sales could be considered to have been made in the ordinary course of 
trade. For groups 2 and 3, profitable sales constituted less than 10% of the domestic 
sales of these product groups. Therefore, for these groups, normal value had to be 
constructed in accordance with Article 2 (3) of the basic Regulation. This was done 
on the basis of the cost of manufacture plus an amount for SG&A costs and profit. 
For this purpose, the producer/exporter's actual data pertaining to production and 
sales in the ordinary course of trade were taken into account. As far as product 
groups 1 and 4 were concerned, between 10% and 80% of domestic sales were 
profitable. Accordingly, for these two groups, normal values were established on 
the basis of profitable sales only, in accordance with Article 2 (4) of the basic 
Regulation. As the four product groups defined by the company corresponded to 
CN codes 7304 39 91 and 7304 39 93, the Commission decided to determine one 
normal value per CN code. Since the export transaction listing was found to be 
32 
unreliable and could not be used as a basis to weight the first three product groups, 
it was impossible to determine the weighted average of the normal values found for 
the three groups. Therefore, the arithmetical average of the normal values 
calculated for the three corresponding product groups was taken into account in 
order to establish normal value for CN code 7304 39 91. As explained above, the 
Commission considered CN code 7304 39 93 as corresponding to product group 4. 
Accordingly, the normal value for CN code 7304 39 93 was that determined for 
product group 4. 
(b) Export price 
(33) As explained in the preceding recital, in the course of the verification visit at the 
premises of the sole Hungarian exporter concerned, it became apparent that the data 
submitted in the questionnaire reply concerning exports showed significant 
divergences from the company's internal records. 
Further to the verification visit, the company was informed in writing that, due to 
the substantial anomalies found on-the-spot and the impossibility of properly 
establishing the real export figures, it was impossible to use the information 
submitted for the determination of the export price to the Community and that 
findings concerning the export price would have to be based on the facts available 
in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation. The company was, at the 
same time, given an opportunity to submit comments. At that point, a completely 
33 
new file was submitted, which was allegedly the correct version of the export 
transaction listing. This file was rejected by the Commission, as the new 
information could not be verified. 
In order to establish Hungarian export prices, the Commission selected as an 
independent source of information the official import statistics published by 
Eurostat, in accordance with Article 18 (5) of the basic Regulation. However, only 
the quantities reported therein for the two CN codes which were exported by this 
producer to the European Community were taken into account. 
(c) Comparison 
(34) For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price 
at ex-works level, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for 
differences which were claimed and demonstrated to affect price comparability. 
The adjustments were made, in accordance with Article 2 (10) of the basic 
Regulation, in respect of transport, insurance, handling and ancillary costs and 
credit costs. 
34 
As far as requests for adjustments for 
• Import charges and indirect taxes 
• Discounts, rebates and quantities 
• Level of trade 
• Currency conversion 
are concerned, the following should be noted: 
Import charges and indirect taxes 
The company claimed an allowance of 8% for extra customs duties paid on raw 
materials imported, in accordance with Article 2 (10) (b) of the basic Regulation. 
However, in the course of the on-the-spot verification, the Commission officials 
found that no duties were refunded for the exported products. Therefore, the claim 
was considered to be unfounded. 
Discounts, rebates and quantities 
The company requested an adjustment of 4% for differences in volumes bought by 
domestic and European Community customers in accordance with Article 2(10) (c) 
of the basic Regulation, claiming that lower prices were paid for larger orders. 
Since no evidence was produced in support of this claim, it was rejected. 
35 
Level of trade 
The company claimed an allowance of 12% for differences in distribution channels 
between the European Community and the domestic markets in accordance with 
Article 2 (10) (d) of the basic Regulation. It was alleged that all European 
Community customers were independent traders whereas 49% of domestic 
customers were end-users. This figure, reported in the table describing the 
distribution channels in the domestic sales section of the questionnaire, was not 
consistent with the data contained in the domestic customer list, where all domestic 
customers were listed as 'independent traders', a situation equivalent to that 
prevailing on the European Community market. The exporter claimed that this 
inconsistency was due to a "language error". Whether or not this was indeed a 
"language error" is irrelevant since, in addition to this inconsistency in the 
company's reply, the Commission officials also found that the domestic prices 
applied by the company were subject to the same pricing policy/price list, 
regardless of the type of customer. This claim could, therefore, not be taken into 
account. 
Currency conversion 
As far as the conversion of export price is concerned, the exporter argued that 
monthly exchange rates should have been used, rather than a yearly rate. However, 
36 
it should be recalled that the determination of export price was based on Eurostat 
data since the transaction-by-transaction listing submitted by the exporter could not 
be used. Since Eurostat data do not focus on the date of sale, but on the date of the 
importer's customs declaration, the use of monthly data would not have more 
appropriately reflected the terms of sale. The claim made by the exporter could not, 
therefore, be accepted. 
(d) Dumping margin 
(35) The comparison, on a CN code basis, of weighted average normal values and 
weighted average export prices, revealed the existence of dumping, the dumping 
margin corresponding to the amount by which the normal value exceeded the 
export price. 
Expressed as a percentage of the CIF free at Community frontier value of imports, 
the dumping margin for the sole Hungarian producer/exporter is: 
Csepel Tubes Co. Ltd. 36.5%. 
Since the sole known producer accounted for almost all Hungarian exports of the 
product concerned to the Community, the residual dumping margin was set at the 
same level. 
37 
3. Poland 
(a) Cooperation 
(36) Replies to the Commission's questionnaire were received from six companies, 
three of which (submitted by two producer/exporters and one related trading 
company) were judged to be insufficient. It was therefore concluded that these three 
companies had failed to provide, within the time limits set, the information deemed 
necessary to the investigation and the companies were informed of the 
Commission's intention to apply Article 18 (1) of the basic Regulation and to base 
its findings on the facts available. 
The three other companies, whose replies were considered sufficient (two 
producers/exporters and one trading company related to a producer/exporter), were 
subsequently verified on-the-spot. Of the two producers/exporters, one refused, 
however, to provide the Commission officials with copies of basic documents such 
as the domestic sales, customer and price listings, original domestic sales invoices, 
and the list of export customers corresponding to the codes in their export sales 
listing. The verification also showed that the company had failed to report in its 
reply its sales to the European Community during the investigation period effected 
via a related company. In view of these deficiencies and the impossibility of 
verifying essential parts of the information provided by the company, the 
38 
Commission was unable to use the information submitted for the determination of 
the normal value and the export price to the Community. Accordingly, the 
company was subsequently informed that, as a result of its non-cooperation, the 
Commission would base its findings on the facts available in accordance with 
Article 18 of the basic Regulation. 
(b) Normal value 
Cooperating parties 
(37) As mentioned in recital (36) above, only one Polish producer/exporter and one 
Polish trading company could be considered as cooperating parties in the present 
review investigation. As no individual dumping calculation is meaningful in the 
case of a trading company, one normal value for the single cooperating 
producer/exporter was established. 
During the investigation period, the single cooperating producer/exporter sold six 
product groups on both the domestic market and in the European Community. The 
global representativity test showed that, during the same period, the total quantity 
of the product concerned sold domestically was more than twice as great as the 
quantity exported to the European Community. The 5% test was then performed on 
a product group basis, from which it resulted that all six product groups were sold 
in sufficient quantities on the domestic market, and could thus be considered 
39 
representative for the determination of normal value, in accordance with Article 2 
(2) of the basic Regulation. 
The profitability test showed that of six product groups, the domestic prices paid in 
the ordinary course of trade could be used as a basis for normal value for five of 
them, in accordance with Article 2 (4) of the basic Regulation. Thé remaining 
product group had insufficient profitable sales and normal value was constructed on 
the basis of the cost of manufacture plus an amount for SG&A costs and profit, in 
accordance with Article 2 (3) of the basic Regulation. For this purpose, the 
producer/exporter's actual data pertaining to production and sales of the like 
product on the domestic market and in the ordinary course of trade, were taken into 
account. 
Non-cooperating parties 
For the four non-cooperating parties, in accordance with Article 18 (6) of the basic 
Regulation, normal value was determined on the basis of the cooperating 
producer's product group which corresponded to the highest normal value, since 
any other choice would have rewarded non-cooperation. However, this was 
mitigated by the fact that all products sold by the cooperating producer on its 
domestic market belong to the larger diameter product groups covered by this 
investigation, which are relatively cheaper than the smaller diameter product 
groups, exported exclusively by the non-cooperating parties. 
40 
(c) Export price 
Cooperating parties 
(38) During the investigation period, the cooperating producer sold the product 
concerned in the European Community both directly and via a related Polish 
intermediary. The export price was determined by taking into account the direct 
transactions as well as the transactions concluded via one of the related trading 
companies. For transactions effected via the trading company, the export price was 
established by reference to the prices actually paid or payable to it. As the related 
trader's functions can be considered similar to those of a trader acting on a 
commission basis, a commission was estimated on the basis of the trading 
company's mark-up verified at its premises. This mark-up was deducted from the 
prices charged by the related company to independent customers in the 
Community. 
Non-cooperating parties 
In accordance with Article 18 (5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected 
as an independent source of information the Eurostat import statistics for the CN 
codes concerned for the three non-cooperating producer/exporters. The export price 
was then established on this basis, after deducting from the total imports the 
41 
quantity and value of goods sold by the cooperating producer in the European 
Community both directly and via the cooperating related trading company. 
(d) Comparison 
(39) For the purpose of a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price 
at an ex-works level, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for 
differences which were claimed and demonstrated to affect price comparability. 
The adjustments were made, in accordance with Article 2 (10) of the basic 
Regulation, in respect of physical characteristics, transport, insurance, handling and 
ancillary costs, commissions, and credit costs. 
(e) Dumping margin 
(40) The dumping margin for the cooperating producer was established, on a product 
group basis, by comparing the weighted average normal value with the weighted 
average export price, in accordance with Article 2 (11) of the basic Regulation. 
Expressed as a percentage of the total CIF Community frontier value of imports, 
the dumping margin for the sole cooperating producer is: 
Huta Batory SA 7.1%. 
42 
For non-cooperating parties a residual dumping margin was calculated by 
comparing the normal value as established in the last paragraph of recital (37) with 
the export price as determined in the last paragraph of recital (38). The residual 
margin, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Community frontier value of imports 
is 33.2%. 
4. Republic of Croatia 
(41) In view of the findings on injury with' regard to the Republic of Croatia (see 
recitals (51) and (69) below), it was not considered necessary to pursue the 
investigation into dumping. <» 
D. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY 
(42) The same Community producers cooperated in the two investigations (see recital 
(8)). These companies represented more than 90% of the total Community 
production of the product subject to the investigation, and constituted, therefore, a 
major proportion of the total production of the product concerned in the 
Community. 
43 
(43) A number of exporters alleged that their products were purchased and imported by 
certain complainant Community producers. They claimed that these producers 
should be excluded from the determination of the Community industry for the 
purpose of the injury assessment pursuant to Article 4 (1) (a) of the basic 
Regulation. 
No substantiating evidence to support this assertion was provided. In addition, the 
investigation carried out by the Commission has shown that none of the 
Community producers imported the products concerned and that certain importers, 
related to such Community producers, imported small quantities of the products 
concerned during the investigation period. These imports were resold in the 
Community market exclusively by these related importers, which were found to 
have acted independently and even to have operated in competition with the sales 
departments of their related producers. In any event, the examination of the facts 
revealed that the volume of these imports accounted for less than 3% of the total 
sales volume of these products on the Community market for each of the 
Community producers. 
It is, therefore, considered that such a low level of imports could not have led to 
any injury to the Community producers and consequently there are no grounds for 
excluding these producers. 
44 
Consequently the producers mentioned in recital (8) will be referred to hereinafter 
as the "Community industry" within the meaning of Article 4 (1) of the basic 
Regulation. 
E. INJURY 
1. Preliminary remark 
(44) It should be mentioned that the anti-dumping measures presently in force with 
respect of Hungary, Poland and the Republic of Croatia are undertakings, 
combining quantitative ceilings and certain pricing commitments, with residual ad 
valorem duties. 
Further, it should be noted that imports of all seamless pipes and tubes (including 
therefore the product concerned), originating in the Czech Republic and the Slovak 
Republic were, between 1993 and 1995*, subject to a tariff quota system, i.e. duty 
free within the limits of a quantitative ceiling; as soon as the ceiling was reached, a 
duty of 30% was levied. This system lapsed at the end of 1995. 
(45) It should also be recalled that the present Regulation combines the result of two 
investigations, one of which has led to the publication of a provisional Regulation. 
All findings regarding injury, causation and Community interest should be read in 
conjunction with the findings described in the provisional Regulation. 
45 
2. Consumption 
(46) In recital (48) of the provisional Regulation, it was stated that Community 
consumption in tonnes per month amounted to 89,900 tonnes in 1992, 69,700 in 
1993, 84,070 in 1994, 92,730 in 1995 and 92,130 during the investigation period. 
These findings were not contested and are confirmed. 
3. Dumped imports 
(a) Cumulation 
(47) In the provisional Regulation, the Commission concluded that the dumped imports 
from Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic should be 
assessed cumulatively for the purpose of injury analysis, on the grounds that the 
products concerned were imported from each exporting country in substantial 
quantities, held a significant market share and competed with each other and with 
those manufactured by the Community industry. 
(48) Some exporters claimed that due to differences in volume and rates of growth of 
imports, as well as in conditions of competition, the impact of these exports to the 
Community should be examined on an individual basis. 
46 
(49) In this respect, the Commission recalls that the criteria set out in Article 3 (4) of the 
basic Regulation were found to be met in order to cumulate the imports from all 
four countries concerned, namely: 
- the margin of dumping established and relating to each country was more than 
de minimis (i.e. between 5.1% and 38.2%); 
- the volume of imports from each country was not negligible; none of the 
exporting countries held a de minimis market share, namely below 1%, since 
their market shares ranged from 3% to 8.3%; 
- with regard to the conditions of competition both between imported products 
and products sold by the Community industry, the imported products were 
found to be interchangeable, to be following similar price, trends, to have similar 
channels of distribution and similar low-price policy resulting in a high level of 
price undercutting (i.e. between 17.5% and 43.2%), to be simultaneously present 
in the same geographical areas and to compete therefore with each other and 
with those manufactured by the Community industry. 
The fact that imports of the product concerned originating in the Czech Republic 
and the Slovak Republic were subject to a tariff-quota system applying until 31 
December 1995 does not alter the conclusion that these imports fulfil the criteria 
47 
laid down in Article 3 (4) of the basic Regulation. It should be noted, in any 
case, that, after the expiry of this system, the market shares of the imports 
concerned increased from 6.7% in 1995 to 9.6% during the first eight months of 
1996 for Czech imports and from 2.1% to 3.4% over the same period for Slovak 
imports. 
For all the above reasons, it is concluded that the conclusions reached in recital (49) 
of the provisional Regulation should be maintained. 
(50) Taking into account the two simultaneous investigations, it was also examined 
whether effects of imports from Hungary, Poland and Croatia should be assessed 
cumulatively with those of the new investigation. 
(51) With regard to imports from Croatia, it was established that its share held in the 
Community market declined from 1.8% in 1992 to 0.7% in the investigation 
period. Given the low and sharply decreasing level of these imports, a situation 
contrary to the one found for the other imports, it was not considered appropriate 
that these imports should be analysed cumulatively. In the light of the fact that 
imports from Croatia are subject to anti-dumping measures, this conclusion is 
reached also taking into account the findings in recital (70) below on the absence of 
likelihood of recurrence of inj ury. 
48 
(52) With respect to imports from Hungary and Poland, it was found that, as with the 
imports of the new investigation, quantities imported and dumping margins were 
significant. 
Concerning imports originating in Hungary, it has been claimed that they are 
negligible and should therefore be disregarded for cumulation purposes in 
accordance with Article 3 (4) of the basic Regulation. However, the investigation 
did not show that these imports were actually negligible. 
In addition, for both investigations, the conditions of competition found between 
the imported products and between the imported products and the Community 
products were similar, in particular, because all the products were considered as 
like products and were sold at prices substantially undercutting those of the 
Community industry (i.e. from 17% to 21.3% for Poland, 25.4% for Hungary). The 
fact that these imports were subject to quantitative undertakings during the period 
considered has no bearing on the conclusion that they can be cumulated with the 
other imports under investigation for injury examination purposes. Indeed, even if 
there were limitations to the quantities exported to the Community and a certain 
increase in their price level as compared with the prices of the exporters in the 
49 
countries subject to the new investigation, imports originating in Hungary and 
Poland have, nevertheless, continued to be made at dumped prices undercutting 
quite significantly those of Community producers. 
(53) The above considerations on cumulation led, therefore, to the conclusion that a 
cumulative assessment of the effect of the dumped imports from the countries 
subject to both investigations, with the exception of Croatia, was warranted 
(hereinafter the "exporting countries"). 
(b) Cumulated volume and market share of dumped imports 
(54) The provisional findings according to which, on a cumulated basis, imports 
decreased from 201,920 tonnes in 1992 to 96,080 tonnes in 1993, and then 
increased to 195,220 tonnes in 1994,230,810 tonnes in 1995 and 268,670 tonnes in 
the investigation period were not contested and are therefore confirmed. 
The same applies to the corresponding market shares amounting to 18.7% in 1992, 
11.5% in 1993, 19.4% in 1994, 20.7% in 1995 and 24.3% in the investigation 
period. 
50 
(c) Prices of dumped imports 
(55) For the determination of price undercutting regarding the exporting countries, the 
data analysed referred to the investigation period. For this purpose, comparison was 
made between weighted average selling prices of the exporting countries concerned 
and weighted average sales prices of Community producers for the seamless steel 
tubes concerned. Price comparison was made on the basis of sales to the first 
independent customer in the Community. In order to ensure comparability, the 
prices of Community producers and those of the imported products were, where 
appropriate, adjusted in terms of transport cost to ex-works or CIF Community 
frontier level. In addition, the import prices were adjusted by an importer's margin, 
including customs clearance, handling charges, commission, financing cost and 
profit based on information available. 
The results of the comparison showed margins of undercutting for all countries and 
exporters concerned. The weighted average price undercutting margins expressed 
as a percentage of Community producers' prices were as follows: 
51 
Czech Republic: from 21.2% to 43.2% 
Hungary: 25,7% 
Poland: from 17.0% to 21.3% 
Romania: 25.8% 
Russia: 41.5% 
Slovak Republic: 17.5% 
4. Situation of the Community industry 
(56) For ease of reference, the results already presented in the provisional Regulation on 
the situation of the Community industry are once again shown below and 
confirmed for the purpose of the definitive determination since they were not 
disputed by the parties. 
(a) Capacity, production and utilisation rate 
(57) Between 1992 and the investigation period, eleven production plants and facilities 
ceased production, representing a reduction of about one fourth of the total 
production capacity of seamless steel tubes existing in the Community at the 
beginning of the period. 
52 
Production of the Community industry fell from 1,136,640 tonnes in 1992 to 
996,036 tonnes in 1995 and to 938,184 tonnes during the investigation period. In 
line with the substantial reduction of capacity, th,e corresponding rates of capacity 
utilisation rose from 63.5% to 75.9%, and fell back to 71.3% over the same period. 
(b) Sales volume and market share 
(58) Sales of Community producers declined from 781,770 tonnes in 1992 to 775,721 
tonnes in 1995 and to 722,042 tonnes during the investigation period. 
The market share held by the Community industry decreased from 75.2% in 1992 
to 72.1% in 1995, and dropped by a further 4.8% to 67.3% during the investigation 
period. 
(c) Sales prices 
(59) On average, unit prices of the product concerned sold by the Community producers 
on the Community market, expressed in ECU per tonne, were 576 in 1992, 578 in 
1995 and 593 during the investigation period, corresponding to an overall increase 
of 3%. 
53 
(d) Profitability 
(60) The Community industry incurred financial losses on its sales of the like product 
during the period under consideration. Between 1992 and 1994, these losses 
averaged 8%. There followed an improvement in return on sales in 1995 (-2.1%), 
and in the investigation period without reaching break-even. Profitability 
percentage levels were as follows: 
1992 1993 1994 1995 Investigation period 
-7,0 -12,2 -7,9 -2,2 -0,7 
This reduction in losses was to a considerable extent possible because of the anti­
dumping measures in force in this sector. In the absence of these measures, there 
would have been even less, if any, reduction in financial losses. Furthermore, the 
slight recovery took place during a period when substantial restructuring efforts 
were made, leading, inter alia, to the above-mentioned closure of plants. These 
developments were, however, not sufficient to generate the level of earnings that 
would be required by the Community industry to cover its increasing production 
costs and the high investment in restructuring, make a reasonable profit, recover 
from previous years' losses and ensure its long term viability. 
54 
(e) Employment 
(61) Employment in the Community industry declined continuously by around 35% 
between 1992 and the end of the investigation period, amounting in absolute terms 
to a loss of about 2,800 jobs. 
5. Final conclusion on injury 
(62) The examination of the economic performance of the Community industry during 
the period under consideration showed that, between 1992 and August 1996, there 
was a decline in production, sales volume and market share as well as a reduction 
in employment, despite considerable restructuring efforts intended to reduce costs 
of production. 
i * 
These restructuring efforts and the measures in place enabled the Community 
industry to increase capacity utilisation and improve its financial results, which, 
however, remained negative during the investigation period (- 0.7%), i.e. under the 
break-even point, and were insufficient to enable the Community industry to ensure 
its long term viability. 
55 
It is therefore concluded that during the period under consideration, the Community 
industry has suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3 of the basic 
Regulation, in the form of decreased sales and loss of market share, reduced 
employment and financial losses. 
F. CAUSATION 
1. Effect of dumped imports 
(a) Cumulated effect of imports from the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, 
Romania, Russia and the Slovak Republic 
(63) While consumption in the Community remained relatively stable, imports from the 
Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russia and the Slovak Republic 
increased their total market share by around 5.6 percentage points, from 18.7% in 
1992 to 24.3% in the investigation period. By contrast, the Community industry 
lost market share by about 7.9 percentage points from 75.2% to 67.3% over the 
same period. Bearing in mind that significant price undercutting was found for each 
exporting country, and considering that the increase of market share held by the 
dumped imports concerned coincided with the deterioration in the Community 
industry's situation, it is concluded that, taken together, imports from the six 
countries concerned had a negative impact on the situation of the Community 
industry. 
56 
(b) Effects of imports originating in Croatia 
Considered in isolation, the imports originating in Croatia cannot be considered as 
having significantly caused material injury to the Community industry due to their 
declining volume and market share. 
2. Effect of other factors 
(a) Other imports 
(64) Certain exporters claimed that imports from other countries, for example Argentina, 
had been made in quantities and at prices that were injurious to the Community 
industry. The examination revealed that imports from other third countries, not 
covered by the two investigations, increased their market share from 4.3% in 1992 
to 6.5% in 1995 and to 7.7% during the investigation period. Although they were 
increasing in volume, the prices of these imports were found, on the basis of the 
statistical data available, to be distinctly higher than those of the dumped imports, 
and there was no indication that imports from third countries not subject to the two 
investigations had been dumped. It is, therefore, concluded that the other imports in 
question had little, if any, impact on the situation of the Community industry. 
(b) General economic situation 
(65) As stated in the provisional Regulation, Community consumption declined in 1993 
due to the world economic recession, which affected in particular the users of the 
57 
product concerned (car industry, construction, etc.). In that year, the volume of 
imports, and the corresponding market share held by the exporting countries 
concerned, also reached a low level, and the Community industry experienced its 
poorest results in terms of sales on the Community market, prices and profitability. 
On this basis, it is evident that the deterioration of the market in 1993 had a 
negative effect on the situation of the Community industry. 
However, save in the exceptional situation of 1993, consumption remained 
generally stable during the other years of the period considered (1992, and 1994 to 
the investigation period). This stability, however, was mainly to the benefit of the 
dumped imports from the countries concerned whose market share increased while 
the Community industry's market share declined continuously. The general 
economic situation cannot, therefore, be considered as a factor continuously 
responsible for the precarious situation still faced by the Community industry. 
Indeed, given the considerable efforts of rationalisation and restructuring made by 
Community producers, and the trade defence measures in force during this period, 
the Community industry should clearly have recovered to a greater extent and 
obtained more satisfactory results in 1995 and 1996. 
58 
(c) Restructuring of the Community industry 
(66) It was alleged by certain exporters that the unsatisfactory performances of the 
Community industry in the period examined was due not to the effect of dumped 
imports but to the restructuring carried out by the industry at that time. 
Without doubt, the restructuring process undergone by the Community industry in 
the face of excess capacities would have been responsible for some of the decrease 
in production, sales and employment. However, given the volume and market share 
of the dumped imports from the countries concerned and the margin of 
undercutting established, it is clear that the dumped imports in isolation played a 
significant role in the material injury suffered by the Community industry. 
3. Conclusion 
(67) Although the world economic recession of 1993 as well as the restructuring of the 
Community industry may have had some negative impact on the performance of 
the Community industry during the period considered, it must be concluded, on the 
basis of the above considerations, that the cumulative effect of the dumped imports 
from the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russia and the Slovak 
Republic, considered in isolation, have, through substantial price undercutting and 
significant quantities of dumped imports, caused material injury to the Community 
industry, and that the existing anti-dumping measures under review have not fully 
59 
achieved their intended effect. Imports originating in Croatia" considered 
separately, cannot be considered to have caused material injury to the Community 
industry. 
It is worthwhile noting that the injury caused by the dumping suffered by the 
Community industry could only become worse if the measures which apply to 
certain cumulated imports were to be repealed. Indeed, in Hungary and Poland high 
volumes of capacity are available for export to the Community, taking into account 
that internal consumption or exports to third countries could not absorb any 
additional output. Furthermore, it should .be noted that capacity in Poland increased 
subsequent to the investigation period by around 15%. 
G. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF INJURY 
CROATIA 
(68) The investigation with regard to Hungary, Poland and the Republic of Croatia was 
an interim review which was initiated in parallel with the new investigation in order 
to examine globally the situation with regard to all imports of seamless pipes and 
tubes into the Community. Actual injury, caused by dumped imports which were 
assessed cumulatively for the purpose of examining their effect, was established. 
There was therefore no need to further examine whether there is a likelihood of 
continuation or recurrence of material injury if the existing anti-dumping measures 
concerning imports originating in Hungary and Poland were removed or altered. 
60 
However, in the case of imports of Croatian origin, which were not cumulated with 
the other imports under investigation, such an examination must be made. 
(69) Following the imposition of anti-dumping measures, imports from Croatia fell 
sharply from 19,201 tonnes in 1992 to 8,077 tonnes during the investigation period, 
representing a decline in market share from 1.8% to 0.7% as stated above in recital 
(51). 
During the period under consideration, exports of the Croatian producer to the 
European Community remained far below the level of the quantitative undertaking 
accepted in 1993. Because of the war-like situation in Croatia in the last few years, 
production facilities of seamless tubes were partially damaged and the work force 
was considerably reduced. As a result, only one quarter, approximately 35,000 
tonnes per year of the theoretical production capacity was pperational. The output 
of the product concerned dropped from around 34,000 in 1992 to 10,515 tonnes 
during the investigation period, thus reducing capacity utilisation from 97% to 
37%. Domestic sales declined from 8,000 tonnes to 2,100 tonnes over the same 
period, while exports to non European Community countries were negligible. 
61 
No sizeable increase of export volumes to the European Community is expected, 
and any price undercutting should have a limited effect on price depression or 
prevention of price increases for Community producers. Moreover, growing 
reconstruction activities in former Yugoslavia should increase domestic sales and 
concentrate Croatian exports on the markets in this area. 
Should the measures in force for Croatia be repealed, there appears to be no clearly 
foreseeable threat of increasing import volumes from Croatia. There is 
consequently no likelihood of recurrence of material injury. 
Conclusion 
(70) With regard to Croatia, it is considered that recurrence of injury, should the existing 
anti-dumping measures be repealed, is unlikely and that, in the circumstances as 
established, these measures are therefore no longer necessary. 
H. COMMUNITY INTEREST 
1. Introduction 
(71) Considering that both the new anti-dumping investigation and the interim review 
referred to the same market, i.e. the Community market of the seamless pipes and 
tubes in question, the examination of the Community interest issue was made 
62 
jointly for both investigations. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the 
possible impact of measures and the consequences of not taking measures for all 
parties involved in both proceedings. 
(72) It should be recalled in this respect that recitals (68) et seq. of the provisional 
Regulation contained an appreciation of all the various interests, including those of 
the Community industry, of the importers/traders and of the downstream user 
industries. On the basis of the information available at the time of the provisional 
Regulation, the Commission concluded that there was no compelling reason hot to 
remedy the trade distorting effects of injurious dumping. 
(73) After publication of the provisional Regulation, none of the parties concerned made 
comments on the Commission's provisional conclusions on the Community interest 
issue. 
However, although no user industry had^cooperated in the course of the provisional 
examination, the Commission pursued its investigation in order to complete its 
analysis on the possible effect of measures on those industries. It approached in this 
respect the complainant, importers and a federation of different processing 
industries using, inter alia, the product concerned. On the basis of these sources, 
seven industrial users were identified and ad hoc questionnaires were sent to each 
of them. Meaningful comments or replies were received from only four user 
companies. 
63 
On the basis of the additional information obtained from these replies, and taking 
into account the absence of comment on the findings contained in the provisional 
Regulation, the following conclusion can be reached. 
2. Impact on the Community industry 
(a) Likely effect of the imposition of anti-dumping measures 
(74) Following the adoption of anti-dumping measures, the prices of the imported 
product can be expected to rise. This would be reflected in a fall in the volumes 
imported and a reduction in market supply, allowing the Community industry to 
increase output and sales. 
The Community industry's prices would probably increase to some extent, but 
certainly not by anything like the level of the duty, given the overcapacity 
described above and the transparency of the market. 
The increase of the Community industry's production volume would result in a 
higher utilisation rate of capacity and thus a reduction of unit costs of the product 
concerned which, as a result, would enable the Community industry to achieve a 
more satisfactory financial situation. 
64 
(b) Likely effect of non-imposition of measures 
(75) Although the situation of the Commumty industry has improved somewhat during 
the period under consideration, it remains unsatisfactory. In these circumstances, if 
anti-dumping measures are not adopted or maintained, the situation could be 
expected to deteriorate again in terms of depressed production levels and capacity 
utilisation rates, loss of market share, financial losses and reduction in employment. 
This would further threaten its capacity to produce the whole range of products at 
competitive costs. 
As noted in recital (73) of the provisional Regulation, the sector in question is 
dependent on a reasonable capacity utilisation rate. This can only be achieved by a 
satisfactory level of production of standardised commercial, or oil, tubes which are 
in direct competition with the dumped products. A decrease in the production of 
these standard pipes would jeopardise the production of higher quality product 
categories and, therefore, the viability of the whole seamless tube sector. 
3. Impact of measures on importers/traders 
(76) In recital (74) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission concluded that, 
because Community importers are known in general to handle all steel products 
and only a small percentage of their turnover consists of the seamless tubes in 
65 
question, the measures can be expected to have no more than a minimal effect on 
their overall situation, given the wide diversity of the products they trade. 
Having received no further comments in this respect, it is reasonable to conclude 
that anti-dumping measures will indeed have only a minimal effect, if any, on the 
situation of importers/traders of the product concerned. 
4. Impact on downstream industrial users 
(77) As stated in recital (71) of the provisional Regulation, there are several downstream 
user industries of the product concerned, i.e. the machinery industry, transport of 
fluids (oil, gas, water, etc.), the chemical and petro-chemical industries, power 
stations (including nuclear), the automobile and construction industries. 
From the analysis of the comments or replies received as mentioned above 
(recital (73)), it is concluded that the impact on the costs of downstream user 
industries of any price increases resulting from adoption or continuation of anti­
dumping measures would be insignificant. 
Furthermore, it should be noted that at least 85% of the dumped imports from the 
countries subject to both the new anti-dumping investigation and the interim review 
are sold to large traders, which appear to have been taking advantage of the dumped 
prices to improve profit margins. In so far as traders adjust margins to take account 
66 
of some or all of the effects of the measures, they could not be reflected at all in 
their sales prices. 
In the light of the above, it is concluded that any price effect resulting from anti­
dumping measures will be negligible with respect to downstream industrial users. 
5. Conclusion 
(78) On the basis of the above elements, it is concluded that there is no compelling 
reason not to remedy the trade-distorting effects of injurious dumping and that the 
respective adoption and continuation of protective measures are in the interest of 
the Community. 
I. DEFINITIVE DUTY 
1. Countries under the new investigation 
(79) It should be recalled from recital (78) et seq. of the provisional Regulation that in 
order to prevent further injury being caused by the dumped imports concerned 
before the end of the proceeding, the Commission decided to adopt anti-dumping 
measures, in the form of provisional duties. 
67 
(a) Injury margins 
(80) For the purpose of determining what level of duty would be adequate to remove the 
injury to the Community industry caused by dumping, it was considered that a 
price level based on the Community producers' cost of production plus a 
reasonable profit margin should be calculated. A profit margin of 5% was regarded 
as an appropriate minimum, taking into account the need for long term investment 
and the return which the Community industry could reasonably expect in the 
absence of injurious dumping. 
The injury elimination level was calculated by comparing the weighted average 
CIF import prices, duly adjusted for an independent importer's margin, to the non-
injurious price of the Community producers, established as above at the same level 
of trade. The amounts resulting from this calculation were expressed as a 
percentage of the weighted average, free-at-Community-frontiers, value of the 
imported goods. The injury margins calculated on that basis are set out below. 
Czech Republic from 37.4% to 97.9% 
Romania 48.3% 
Russia 87.8% 
Slovak Republic 31%. 
68 
Having received no further comments in this respect, the above determination of 
the injury elimination level is confirmed. 
(b) Definitive duty 
(81) As the injury elimination margins found above are higher than the dumping 
margins that have been calculated, definitive anti-dumping duties should be set at 
the level of the latter, in accordance with Article 9 (4) of the basic Regulation. 
These duties, expressed as a percentage of free-at-Community frontier prices, 
amount to: 
Czech Republic Vftkovice a.s. 
Nova Hut a.s. 
Other imports 5.1% 
5.1% 
28.6% 
Romania : SC Artrom SA 
SC Silcotub SA 
SC Petrotub SA 9.8% 
9.8% 
9.8% 
SC Republica SA Trade Company 9.8% 
Other imports 38.2% 
Slovak Republic Zeleziarne Podbrezovâ a.s. 
Other imports 7.5% 
7.5% 
Russia : All imports 26.8%. 
69 
2. Countries under the review investigation 
(a) Hungary and Poland 
(82) As a result of the findings concerning Hungary and Poland, confirming that despite 
the existing measures, dumping has caused injury, and considering that it is in the 
Community's .interest that anti-dumping measures with regard to these two 
countries be maintained, a determination of a revised duty has been made. 
The injury margins required to remove the injury caused by imports of Hungarian 
and Polish origin and calculated on the basis of the same methodology as that used 
for the countries under the new investigation, as explained above in recital (80), 
are: 
for Hungary : 45.9% (Csepel Tubes Co. Ltd., 
sole Hungarian producer) 
for Poland: Huta Batory SA 37.2% 
Others 30.1%. 
In accordance with Article 9 (4) of the basic Regulation, the rates of duty should be 
based on the lower of either the injury elimination margin or the dumping margin 
established. The dumping margins with regard to the Polish producer Huta Batory 
70 
and the sole Hungarian producer being below the injury margin found, the duty 
should be based on this lower level. For the other Polish producers, the duty is 
limited to the injury margin established. 
(83) On this basis, the existing anti-dumping duties which amount to 10.8% for Poland 
and 21.7% for Hungary should be replaced by the following duties: 
Hungary: Csepel Tubes Co. Ltd. 36.5% 
Others 36.5% 
Poland: Huta Batory SA 7.1% 
Others 30.1% 
(b) Republic of Croatia 
(84) Based on the conclusions reached in recital (51) and taking into account that there 
is no clearly foreseeable threat of increasing import volumes from the Republic of 
Croatia (see recital (69)) and that, under these circumstances, the recurrence of 
material injury is not imminent, no determination of a definitive duty has been 
made in respect of the Republic of Croatia. 
71 
J. DEFINITIVE MEASURES 
(85) The conclusions reached above as to dumping, injury, causation and Community 
interest call for definitive measures, both for the countries under the new 
investigation and for those under the review investigation, with the exception of 
Croatia, for which the anti-dumping proceeding should be terminated. These 
measures should be in the form of ad valorem duties, the rates of which have been 
fixed individually for cooperating companies. Non-cooperating companies, on the 
other hand, should be subject to the residual duties. 
(86) However, as regards Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania and the 
Slovak Republic, it has been found appropriate, taking into account the specific 
history of previous anti-dumping proceedings concerning this product, in which 
those countries were subject either to quantitative restrictions or tariff quotas, to 
accept price undertakings which have been offered up to a certain quantity 
threshold on a company by company basis. In other words, the elimination of the 
injury is achieved by two means : first, a price undertaking up to an annual volume 
threshold exempt from the duty, and then an ad valorem duty for the remainder. 
To ensure that the quantity of imports exempted from the ad valorem duty does not 
exceed the quantity in respect of which the undertaking has been offered, the 
exemption should be conditional on the presentation to Member States' customs 
services of a valid production certificate clearly identifying the producer, the 
product concerned and the details listed in the Annex. In cases of doubt, the 
Commission should make a determination as to the certificate's validity, and take 
measures as appropriate. 
72 
(87) As regards Russia, the Commission has examined an offer of a joint undertaking 
from three of the six companies which made themselves known during the 
investigation, and has considered the possibility of these Russian producers 
benefiting from a similar form of undertaking to that of the producers in the 
associated countries. However, this offer was not acceptable as it did not contain 
the necessary guarantees on the part of the Russian authorities to allow adequate 
monitoring, particularly with regard to the duty free threshold. In these 
circumstances an ad valorem duty should be imposed at the level definitively 
established. 
The Council notes, however, that the measure in respect of Russia could be 
modified, if and when there was a change in circumstances such that the conditions 
for the acceptance of an undertaking were met. 
73 
K. COLLECTION OF PROVISIONAL DUTY WITH REGARD TO COUNTRIES 
UNDER THE NEW INVESTIGATION 
(88) In view of the circumstances of the present investigation; i.e. the change in the form 
and nature of the definitive measures, as compared with the provisional ad valorem 
duties imposed on imports from the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak 
Republic, and with the existing undertakings in respect of imports from Hungary, 
Poland and the Republic of Croatia, the Council considers that it is not appropriate 
to collect the provisional duties. The Council has therefore decided, in accordance 
with Article 10 (2) of the basic Regulation, that the amounts secured by way of the 
provisional duty imposed pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 981/97 on 
imports of the product concerned originating in Russia, the Czech Republic, 
Romania and the Slovak Republic should be released. 
L. FINAL PROVISION 
(89) The Commission consulted the Advisory Committee on the acceptance of these 
undertakings and, since some objections were raised, sent a report on these 
consultations to the Council. The Council not having decided against the 
acceptance of the undertakings, the undertakings offered were accepted in 
accordance with Article 8 (5) of the basic Regulation by Commission Decision 
97/..../EC9, 
9 See page of this Official Journal. 
74 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION : 
Article 1 
1. Definitive anti-dumping duties are hereby imposed on the following imports 
originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the 
Slovak Republic 
a) seamless pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel, of a kind used for oil and gas 
pipelines, of an external diameter not exceeding 406.4 mm (currently falling 
within CN codes 7304 10 10 and 7304 10 30); 
b) seamless tubes of circular cross-section, of iron or non-alloy steel, cold-drawn or 
cold-rolled, other than precision tubes (currently falling within CN code 7304 31 
99); 
c) other tubes of circular cross-section, of iron or non-alloy steel, other than 
threaded or threadable, of an external diameter not exceeding 406.4 mm 
(currently falling within CN codes 7304 39 91 and 7304 39 93). 
2. The rate of definitive anti-dumping duties applicable to the net free-at-Community 
frontier prices before duty, shall be as follows : 
75 
Country 
Hungary 
Poland 
Russia 
Czech Republic 
Romania 
Slovak Republic Manufacturer 
Csepel Tubes Co. Ltd. 
Others 
Huta Batory SA 
Huta Andrzej SA 
Huta Czestochowa 
Huta Jednosc SA 
Others 
All companies 
Vftkovice a.s. 
Nova Hut a.s. 
VT Chomutov a.s. 
Others 
SC Artrom SA 
SC Silcotub SA 
SC Petrotub SA 
SC Republica SA Trade Company 
Others 
Zeleziarne Podbrezovâ a.s. 
Others Rate of duty (%) 
36,5% 
36,5% 
7,1% 
30,1% 
30,1% 
30,1% 
30,1% 
26.8% 
5.1% 
5.1% 
28.6% 
28.6% 
9.8% 
9.8% 
9.8% 
9.8% 
38.2% 
7.5% 
7.5% Taric 
additional 
Code 
8717 
8900 
8476 
8719 
8482 
8493 
8900 
8058 
8463 
8464 
8900 
8059 
8467 
8468 
8469 
8900 
8060 
8900 
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall 
apply. 
76 
Article 2 
1. Imports shall be exempt from the anti-dumping duties imposed by Article 1 (1) 
provided that they are produced and sold for export to the Community by the 
companies listed in paragraph 4 below which have offered undertakings accepted 
by the Commission and provided that the conditions of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of 
this Article are met. 
2. When the declaration for release for free circulation is presented, exemption from 
the duty shall be conditional upon presentation to the competent Member States' 
customs services of a valid, original production certificate issued by one of the 
companies listed in paragraph 4 below. The production certificate shall conform 
with the requirements for such certificates set out in the undertaking accepted by 
the Commission, the essential elements of which are listed in the Annex to this 
Regulation. 
3. The above-mentioned production certificate must be presented within three months 
of its date of issue. The quantities presented to the Member States' customs 
services for import into the Community free of the anti-dumping duty shall not 
exceed those stipulated on the certificate. When quantities stipulated on the 
certificate are exceeded, the excess shall be subject to the duty, and be declared 
under the relevant Taric additional code of Article 1 (2). 
77 
4. Imports accompanied by a production certificate shall be declared under the 
following Taric additional codes : 
Taric 
Country Product manufacturer additional 
Code 
Hungary Csepel Tubes Co. Ltd. 8521 
Poland Huta Batory SA 8517 
Huta Andrzej SA 8518 
Huta Czestochowa 8519 
Huta Jednosc SA 8520 
Czech Republic VT Chomutov a.s. 8507 
Romania SCArtromSA 8508 
SASilcotubSA 8509 
SCPetrotubSA 8514 
SC Republica SA Trade Company 8515 
Slovak Republik Zeleziame Podbrezovâ a.s. 8516 
Article 3 
Member States' reports to the Commission pursuant to Article 14 (6) of Regulation (EC) 
No 384/96, shall indicate for each release for free circulation, the year and month of 
import, the CN, Taric and Taric additional codes, the type of measure, the country of 
origin, the quantity, the value, the anti-dumping duty, the Member State of import and, 
where appropriate, the serial number of the production certificate. 
78 
Article 4 
Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 is repealed. 
Article 5 
The anti-dumping proceeding against imports of the product concerned originating in 
Croatia is hereby terminated. 
Article 6 
The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties imposed pursuant to 
Regulation (EC) No 981/97 on imports of the product concerned originating in Russia, 
the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic shall be released. 
Article 7 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following 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 
79 
ANNEX 
Main elements of the production certificate' 
a) The number of the certificate; 
b) Identification showing whether the certificate is an original; 
c) The date of expiry of the certificate; 
d) The following text : 
"Production certificate issued by <the Company> pursuant to Article 2 (2) of the 
Council Regulation (...) for the export to the European Community within TARIC 
additional Code XXXX of certain Seamless Steel Pipes and Tubes." 
e) The name and full address of the Company, and possible identification number such 
as national registration number for incorporated companies; 
f) The name and full address of the customer of the Company in the Community 
importing the goods or the name and full address of the unrelated trader outside the 
Community exporting the goods; 
g) The number of the Company invoice to which the production certificate relates; 
h) The exact description of the goods, including : 
A product description sufficient to identify the Products, which will be identical 
to the product description on the invoice; 
- CN code; 
Quantity (in metric tonnes). 
* Under the undertaking offered and accepted by the Commission, each box on the certificate will be in 
four languages, the language of the country of the producer, English, French and German. 
r> 
i) The name of the official of the Company responsible for the issue of the certificate 
and the following signed declaration : 
"I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for export to the European Community of the 
goods covered by this certificate is being made within the scope and under the terms 
of the undertaking by <the Company>, and within the permitted volume for anti­
dumping duty free imports into the Community set out in the undertaking accepted 
by the Commission pursuant to Decision (...). I declare that the information 
provided in this certificate is complete and correct." 
j) Space for use by the competent authorities Of the Community. 
r> 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(97) 535 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 02 n 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-551-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-26088-6 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
£1