COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
COM(93) 143 final 
Brussels, 5 May 1993 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) 
imposing 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 and 
definitively collecting provisional anti-dumping duties 
(presented by the Commission) 
- 2 -
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
1. Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92 of 12 November 19921 imposed 
provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes 
and tubes, of iron or non-alloy steel, originating in former 
Czechoslovakia, now the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, 
Hungary, Poland and the Republic of Croatia. 
2. Council Regulation (EEC) No 545/93 of 8 March 19932 extended these 
duties for a period of two months. Thus, the provisional duties are due 
to expire on 16 May 1993. 
3. All producers/exporters of the countries concerned who have cooperated 
during the investigation, requested and were granted hearings. Most of 
them made also written submissions making known their views regarding 
the preliminary findings of the investigation. The Commission 
considered, where appropriate, their oral and written comments put 
forward before drawing its final conclusions. 
4. As no relevant new evidence on dumping has been received since the 
imposition of the provisional duties, the preliminary findings on 
dumping as set out in Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92 are therefore 
considered to be definitive. 
5. In the absence of any new evidence on injury, the Commission confirms 
its preliminary findings in this regard. 
6. With respect to causality and to Community interest, the Commission 
confirms the general considerations as provisionally defined. 
In these circumstances, it is considered that it is in the Community 
interest to impose definitive anti-dumping measures and to collect 
definitively provisional anti-dumping duties in order to eliminate the 
injurious effects of the dumped imports originating in the Hungary, 
1 OJ No L 328, 14.11.1992, p. 15. 
2 OJ No L 58, 11.3.1993, p. 1. 
- 3 -
Poland and the Republic of Croatia. Due to the negotiations of trade 
arrangements with regard to the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, 
it is considered not appropriate, at this point in time, to take 
protective measures. 
7. Provisional measures took the form of anti-dumping duties. These were 
imposed at an amount based on the price undercutting found by the 
Commission. Since no arguments concerning the provisional duty 
calculation method were raised, the preliminary findings are confirmed 
by the Commission. The amounts of the definitive anti-dumping duties 
should therefore be the same as the amounts of the provisional duties. 
8. Having been informed of the final results of the investigation, the 
Hungarian, Polish and Croatian producers/exporters offered undertakings 
within the meaning of Article 10(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88. 
Taking into account that the effect of these undertakings would be that 
the injurious consequences of the dumped imports are eliminated and 
that the Community industry was in favour of their acceptance, the 
Commission considers the undertakings offered acceptable. 
9. When the Member States were consulted on the acceptance of the 
undertakings offered, none of them raised objections. 
10. In these circumstances, the Commission, pursuant to Article 12 of 
Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, proposes to the Council to impose residual 
definitive anti-dumping duties on all other imports of certain seamless 
pipes and tubes, or iron or non-alloy steel, originating in Hungary, 
Poland and the Republic of Croatia. 
11. The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to 
Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92 should be definitively collected in full 
for imports of the products concerned originating in Hungary, Poland, 
the Republic of Croatia, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic for 
the period up to 31 December 1992. For imports effected after this date 
these amounts shall be released, taking into account that for all known 
producers, undertakings or other trade measures will be applicable, 
which are considered to eliminate injury caused by dumping to the 
Community industry. 
_ 4 -
12. Simultaneously with the Council Regulation, the Commission intends to 
publish a decision accepting undertakings offered by the exporters in 
question. 
- 5 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) 
imposing 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 and 
definitively collecting provisional anti-dumping duties 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on 
protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members 
of the European Economic Community1, and in particular Article 12 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, submitted after 
consultation within the Advisory Committee as provided for under the above 
Regulation, 
Whereas: 
A. PREVIOUS ACTION 
1. By Regulation (EEC) No 3296/922, the Commission imposed provisional 
ant I-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of 
iron or non-alloy steel, originating in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland 
and the Republic of Croatia. The Council, by Regulation (EEC) 
No 545/933 extended these duties for a period not exceeding two 
months. 
Due to the political changes as from 1 January 1993, the proceeding 
now concerns the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic as successors 
of the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic. 
1 OJ No L 209, 2.8.1988, p. 1. 
2 OJ No L 328, 14.11.1992, p. 15 
3 OJ No L 58, 11.3.1993, p. 1. 
- 6 -
B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 
2. Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duties, 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. 
3. The Czech, Slovak and Hungarian exporters alleged that the Commission 
had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 23, 27(2) and 
27(3)(b) of the Interim Agreements4 concluded between the European 
Economic Community and the European Coal and Steel Community of the one 
part, and the former Czechoslovakia and Hungary of the other part, on 
trade and trade-related matters, by omitting in particular duly to 
inform the Joint Committees set up under the Interim Agreements as it 
was required to do at certain stages of the proceeding. 
4. As far as the initiation of the proceeding is concerned, the Council 
notes that at the time of the initiation of the procedure the Interim 
Agreements had not entered into force and the Joint Committees were not 
established. The Commission therefore has notified the competent 
authorities of the countries concerned pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) of 
Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of the initiation of the proceeding. After 
the imposition of provisional duties, the Joint Committees were 
notified pursuant to Article 27(3)(b) of the Interim Agreements. 
5. In this respect some exporters claimed that there was no urgency in 
this case for the Commission to impose provisional anti-dumping duties 
forthwith and that the Joint Committees should have been informed 
pursuant to Article 27(2) of the Interim Agreements before adopting 
provisional measures. 
6. The results of the preliminary investigation have, however, shown that 
the dumped imports were causing material injury to the Community 
industry. The Council notes that in this case any further delays would 
have considerably increased this injury so that an urgent intervention 
in the sense of Article 27(3)(b) of the Interim Agreement was 
indicated. 
Czechoslovakia : OJ No L 115, 30.4.1992, p. 2. 
Hungary : OJ No L 116, 30.4.1992, p. 2. 
7 -
7. Upon request, the parties were informed of the essential facts and 
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the 
imposition of definitive duties and the definitive collection of 
amounts secured by way of a provisional duty. They were also granted a 
period within which to make representations subsequent to the 
disclosure. 
8. The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were examined 
and, where appropriate, considered in the Commission's findings. 
9. This investigation was not concluded within the period specified in 
Article 7(9)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 owing to the complexity 
of the proceeding and to the difficulties of communication and 
information-gathering, resulting in numerous requests from the parties 
concerned for extensions of deadlines, which were granted by the 
Commission when justified by the circumstances. 
C. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY 
10. The Hungarian exporter claimed that its products were partly purchased 
by certain complaining Community producers themselves and that those 
producers should have been excluded from the injury determination 
pursuant to Article 4(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88. 
11. In that context, the Commission recalls its standing practice of 
excluding importing Community producers only when they are either 
shielded from the effect of the dumped imports, draw undue benefits 
from them or import such quantities in relation to their own production 
that they can no longer be considered to be committed to production in 
the Community. 
12. In this case the products concerned, originating in Hungaryt were not 
imported by complaining Community producers themselves, as was alleged. 
Importers were certain trading companies with which producers have 
loose ties through a participation or a common holding. The imports 
therefore cannot be attributed to the producers themselves. 
- 8 -
13. With regard to the effects of the dumped imports brought in by some 
related importers, the Commission found that the producers concerned 
could not have benefited from those transactions or have been thereby 
shielded from the effects of dumping. The importers in question did not 
function, as alleged, as sales and distribution subsidiaries on behalf 
of and under the instructions of the complaining producers but operated 
independently in competition with the sales activities of those 
producers. The imports in question were made and resold in the 
Community under the same conditions as other dumped imports. In 
addition, the quantities involved were small in relation to the output 
of the producers concerned. In those circumstances, the Commission 
concludes that any advantage which may have indirectly accrued is 
negligible compared to the direct injury suffered by the producers as 
shown in recitals 36 and 37 and that there are no reasonable grounds 
for excluding those producers from the Community industry. The Council 
confirms this finding of the Commission. 
D. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE PRODUCT 
14. The Commission, in recitals 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EEC) 
No 3296/92, defined the products which were the subject of the 
proceeding. The Hungarian exporter claimed that the Commission should 
have distinguished three different products, namely commercial pipe and 
tubes, line pipe, and cold-drawn or cold-rolled tubes - all three being 
technically different products for different applications. 
15. As is set out by the Commission in Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92, all 
seamless tubes and pipes are manufactured by basically the same 
production technology, generating products which are alike in their 
essential physical and technical characteristics and in their end uses. 
While there are some quality differences between these three types of 
tubes, these are not such as to establish clear dividing lines between 
the products. Indeed, the higher-quality tubes can be, and are, used 
for the same applications as the lower-grade tubes. As far as like 
products are concerned, the Commission found that the tubes sold on the 
9 -
Croatian market were similar or identical to those imported from the 
countries concerned and that the products manufactured and sold by the 
Community industry were also similar in all respects. Indeed, the 
investigation of the Commission has revealed that all products 
regardless of their grade and origin compete with each other in the 
Community market. 
Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the products concerned were 
to be considered "like products" within the meaning of Article 2(12) of 
Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88; that conclusion is confirmed by the 
Counc iI. 
E. DUMPING 
1. Normal value 
(a) Croatia 
16. As no new evidence has been submitted by the Croatian exporter since 
the imposition of provisional duties, the findings on dumping with 
regard to Croatia, as set out in Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92, are 
considered to be definitive. 
(b) Hungary, Poland and former Czechoslovakia 
17. The Commission considered Hungary, Poland and former Czechoslovakia 
during the investigation period as non-market economies and, in 
accordance with Article 2(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, based its 
determinations on the normal values of the products concerned in a 
market economy country - in this case Croatia. 
18. Most of the Hungarian, Polish, Czech and Slovak producers contested 
that determination by the Commission and claimed once again that their 
domestic prices or production costs should be taken into consideration, 
since their economies had reached a stage where they had to be treated 
as market economies. 
- 10 -
19. The Commission considers that the fact that during the investigation 
period they were still listed as State-trading countries according to 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/825, as last amended by Regulation 
(EEC) No 848/926, is decisive, and accordingly that Article 2(5) of 
Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 is applicable to the determination of 
normal value for those contries. The Council confirms this finding. 
20. Several parties to the proceeding claimed that the Commission should 
have taken account of the change of circumstances due to the removal of 
those countries from the list of State-trading countries by Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 517/927, which entered into force in March 1992, 
namely by updating the investigation period. 
21. The Commission notes that the removal of the countries concerned from 
the list of State-trading countries by Regulation (EEC) No 517/92 took 
effect on 1 March 1992, i.e. after the investigation period determined 
pursuant to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 which is the 
basis for the anti-dumping proceeding and the findings of the 
Commission. As was stated in recital 19, this leads to the conclusion 
that, in the present case, the countries concerned had to be treated as 
State trading economies. Matters would be quite different if the 
Commission had to fix a new investigation period situated entirely 
after the abovementioned date. 
22. The Hungarian exporter contested once again the choice of Croatia as a 
suitable analogous market economy, alleging that the particular 
difficulties this country was and is facing, the differences in the 
production technology and an unrepresentative product mix and market 
made it an inappropriate choice. No evidence for these allegations was, 
however, produced. As an alternative for Croatia, the Hungarian 
exporter proposed Venezuela. 
23. As far as Venezuela is concerned, the Commission has information that 
the main production plant was shut down three years ago. Supplies of 
seamless tubes to the domestic market in Venezuela are principally 
covered by imports. That country cannot therefore be considered 
suitable. 
5 OJ No L 195, 5.7.1982, p. 1 
6 OJ No L 89, 4.4.1992, p. 1. 
7 OJ No L 56, 29.2.1992, p. 1 
- 11 -
24. As far as Croatia is concerned, the information made available to the 
Commission shows that during the investigation period the Croatian 
exporter was producing normally. Sales activities on the domestic 
market continued throughout the investigation period and were 
representative in relation to the exports concerned. As was explained 
in recital 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92, prices charged showed a 
reasonable level in relation to production costs. For the above 
reasons, the Council confirms the conclusion of the Commission that it 
was appropriate and not unreasonable to apply the normal values 
established for Croatia to the Czechoslovak Ian, Hungarian and Polish 
products. 
25. The Hungarian exporter claimed further that the Commission should not 
have used the domestic price lists of the Croatian producer to 
establish normal value but should have used actual sales prices. 
26. As is explained in recital 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92, the 
Commission established that actual sales of the Croatian producer were 
made in conformity with the price lists. The Council confirms this 
f i ndIng. 
2. Export price 
27. Export prices for all four exporting countries were determined as 
explained in recital 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92, and, in the 
absence of any relevant new arguments, are considered definitive. 
3. Comparison 
28. Normal values and export prices were compared in the manner set out in 
recital 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92. 
29. Some of the exporters claimed adjustments on behalf of differences in 
quality between their products exported to the Community and those sold 
by the Croatian producer on his domestic market. 
42 -
I 
\ 
\ 30. No evidence was, however, produced showing, within the same categories 
of tubes, any relevant differences in physical characteristics of the 
products manufactured in Poland, Hungary, former Czechoslovakia, 
Croatia or in the Community which would affect the comparison carried 
out by the Commission. The claim is, therefore, to be dismissed in 
accordance with Article 2(9)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88. 
31. Some exporters submitted that normal values should have been adjusted 
for differences in selling costs such as salesmen's salaries and for 
sales made In different quantities. 
32. On the basis of the evidence made available to the Commission by the 
Croatian producer, allowances have been made for all identifiable, 
directly related selling costs incurred at the level of trade on which 
the comparison was based. The Comission had no Indication - nor did the 
Croatian company claim- that it had incurred allowable expenses for 
salesmen directly involved in the distribution of the products 
concerned. Instead of volume rebates, the Croatian company operates a 
system of graduated supplements of up to 20% for shipments of less than 
a threshold quantity. As most export sales exceeded that quantity, the 
Commission, for the purpose of comparison, has disregarded these 
supplements in respect of all export sales. 
33. The Hungarian exporter alleged that the Commission had used a 
government fixed exchange rate for the Yugoslav dinar for the 
conversion of normal value and export prices. This is not the case. 
Contrary to the situation in Hungary, where a government fixed rate for 
commercial transactions was operated untiI October 1991, the Yugoslav 
dinar was floating throughout the investigation period and the 
Commission has used the free market rate as recorded by the 
International Monetary Fund. 
- 13 -
4. Dumping margins 
34. The final examinât ion of the facts reveals the existence of dumping for 
the Croatian producer, zeIjezara Stsak, as well as for the products 
concerned exported by Hungary, Poland and former Czechoslovakia. The 
margins of dump ing wh ich vary accord Ing to the exporter are equaI to 
the amount by which the normal values, as established, exceed the 
prices for export to the Community; 
35. The weighted average margins of dumping definitively established and 
expressed as a percentage of the cif Community frontier prices of the 
imports are as follows: 
- ZeIJezara SIsak, Croatia 25.5% 
- Hungary 21.8* 
- Poland 11.7% 
- the Czech Republic 49.6% 
- the Slovak Republic 49.6% 
F. INJURY 
36. In its preliminary findings, the Commission concluded that the 
Community seamless tube industry had suffered material injury from the 
cumulated effects of the dumped imports from the countries concerned. 
This view was founded mainly on the convergence of economic indicators 
such as the decline of production and sales volume, the significant 
loss of market share, depression of prices In a period of rising 
production costs and consequent deterioration in financial results. 
37. As far as the situation Of the Community industry is concerned, no new 
a r gument s we r e pu t f or wa r d after the I mr>os 11 ton of • p# ov i si * ma I »• ffo*t ies 
The Council therefore confirms the findings set out In recitals 36 to 
42 of Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92. 
••* 14 -
G. CNJSAUTY 
38. The Polish and Hungarian exporters argued that their exports did not 
follow the same pattern as those of the other countries concerned and 
that therefore the Commission should not have established the 
cumulative impact of their dumped imports on the Community industry. 
39. Contrary to this allegation, the Commission established that the 
increase in market share of those countries is considerable and the 
market share as such not negligible. In addition, the exporters of both 
countries resorted to undercutting practices to gain those increased 
market shares. They followed, therefore, a similar pattern of market 
strategies. For these and the reasons given in recitals 27 and 28 of 
Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92, the Commission concludes, and the Council 
confirms, that the impact of the dumped imports has to be established 
cumulatively. 
40. As far as price undercutting is concerned, several exporters alleged 
that, in the comparison of their resale prices in the Community with 
prices charged by the Community industry, certain adjustments made in 
the provisional determination underestimated the level of the actual 
costs incurred. The Commission established, however, that those 
adjustments corresponded to the normal transaction costs at the 
comparable level of trade. 
41. With regard to other factors such as changes in demand, the influence 
of other imports and restructuring problems, the Commission has 
analysed the situation in recital 47 of Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92, 
which is hereby confirmed by the Council. 
42. In the absence of further arguments, the Council confirms the findings 
of the Commission set out in recitals 44 to 48 of Regulation (EEC) 
No 3298/92. 
- 15 -
H. COMMUNITY INTEREST 
43. Several exporters argued that in view of the special relations of the 
Community with Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and the Slovak 
Republic, as reflected in various agreements between the contracting 
parties and in particular the Interim Agreements on trade and trade-
related matters concluded by the Community with those countries, it is 
not in the Community's interest to impose anti-dumping measures. To do 
so would bring exports to a halt and prevent the countries from 
developing and diversifying trade with the Community, which is the 
declared interest of the Community in its relations with them. 
44. In this context, the Commission notes that the agreements explicitly 
provide for the application of anti-dumping measures. The Commission 
accepts that anti-dumping measures should not normally preclude certain 
exporters from trading with the Community. Indeed, given the specific 
circumstances of the present case, the Commission calculated the anti­
dumping measures in such a way as to eliminate the price undercutting, 
thus ensuring that fair competition was restored on the Community 
market without reducing the overall level of competition. 
45. No observations were received from any user of the products concerned 
imported from Hungary, Poland, Croatia, the Czech Republic and the 
Slovak Republic within the time limit laid down in Article 3 of 
Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92. The general considerations with regard to 
"Community interest" (see recitals 49 to 53 of Regulation (EEC) 
No 3296/92) are accordingly confirmed by the Council. 
46. In the circumstances, the Council considers that it is in the Community 
interest to impose definitive anti-dumping measures to eliminate the 
injurious effects of dumped imports. 
•- 16 -
I. DUTY 
47. Provisional measures took the form of anti-dumping duties. They were 
imposed at rates based on the price undercutting recorded by the 
Commission. No arguments were raised concerning this method of 
calculating the duty. The findings of the Commission as expressed In 
recitals 34 and 35 of Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92 being confirmed by 
the Council, the amounts of the definitive anti-dumping duties should 
be the same as the amounts of the provisional duties. 
J. UNDERTAKINGS 
48. Having tfoçn informed of the final results of the investigation, the 
Polish, Hungarian, Croatian exporters offered undertakings within the 
meaning of Article 10(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88. 
Following consultations within the Advisory Committee, during which no 
objections were raised to this solution, the undertakings were accepted 
by Commission Decision 8. 
K. PROCEEDING WITH REGARD TO 
THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC 
49. In light of the negotiations of trade arrangements with the Czech 
Republic and the Slovak Republic for the years 1993 to 1995 with regard 
to certain sensitive steel products Including welded and seamless tubes 
comprising also the products covered by this proceeding, it is not 
appropriate, at this point in time to take protective measures with 
regard to the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic. 
See page .... of this Officiel Journal 
- 17 -
L. COLLECTION OF PROVISIONAL DUTIES 
50. In view of the level of dumping margins found and thç seriousness of 
the injury caused to Community producers, it is considered necessary 
that amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties should 
be collected in full with regard to all imports of the products 
concerned, originating in Hungary, Poland, the Republic of Croatia, the 
Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic for the period up to 31 December 
1992. For imports effected after that date the amounts should be 
released, since for all known producers undertakings or other trade 
measures will be applicable and are considered to eliminate the injury 
caused by dumping to the Community industry, 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
Article 1 
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on the following 
imports: 
- seamless pipes, of iron or steel, of a kind used for oil or gas 
pipelines, of an external diameter not exceeding 406.4mm 
(falling within CN codes 7304 10 10 and 7304 10 30); 
- seamless tubes of circular cross-section, of iron or non-alloy 
steel, cold-drawn or cold-rolled, other than precision tubes 
(falling within CN code 7304 31 99); and 
- 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 (falling within CN codes 7304 39 91 and 
7304 39 93); 
originating in Hungary, Poland and Croatia. 
2. The rate of the duty applicable to the net free-at-Commun ity-
frontier price for imports of the products concerned, originating in 
the following countries, not cleared through customs, shall be: 
& - 48 -
Rate of duty Taric additional 
codes 
Hungary 
PoI and 
Croatia 21.7% 
10.8% 
17.4% 8718 
8720 
8722 
3. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the duty shall not apply to the 
products concerned manufactured or exported by: 
HUNGARY: 
Csepel Tube Works, Budapest (Taric additional code 8717) 
POLAND : 
Centrozap, Foreign Trade 
Company Ltd., Katowice (Taric additional code 8719) 
Huta Andrzej, Zawadzkie (Taric additional code 8719) 
Stalexport, Foreign Trade 
Enterprise, Katowice (Taric additional code 8719) 
Huta im M. Buczka, Sosnowiec (Taric additional code 8719) 
Huta Czestochowa, Czestochowa (Taric additional code 8719) 
Huta Jednosc, Siemianowice SI. (Taric additional code 8719) 
Huta Batory s.a., Chorzow (Taric additional code 8719) 
CROATIA: 
ZeIjezara Sisak 
Sisak Steel Pipe Works, Zagreb (Taric additional code 8721) 
4. The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply. 
- 19 -
Article 2 
The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to 
Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92 shall be definitively collected in full for 
imports of the products concerned, originating in Hungary, Poland, the 
Republic of Croatia, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic for the 
period up to 31 December 1992. For imports effected after this date the 
amounts shall be released. 
Article 3 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its 
publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. 
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable In 
all Member States. 
Done at Brussels, For the Council 
The President 

20 -
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(93) 143 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN il 02 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-93-168-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-54429-5 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg