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
Date: 1993-05-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, piping, tube

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 
2 

OJ No L 328, 14.11.1992, p. 15. 
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 
2 
3 

OJ No L 209, 2.8.1988, p. 1. 
OJ No L 328, 14.11.1992, p. 15 
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. 
: OJ No L 116, 30.4.1992, p. 2. 
Hungary 

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. 

1. Normal  value 

(a) Croatia 

E. DUMPING 

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 
6 
7 

OJ  No L 195, 5.7.1982, p. 1 
OJ  No L 89, 4.4.1992, p. 1. 
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 

-  Hungary 

-  Poland 

-  the Czech  Republic 

-  the Slovak  Republic 

25.5% 

21.8* 

11.7% 

49.6% 

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 9 9 ); 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 -

Hungary 

PoI and 

Croatia 

Rate of duty  Taric additional 

codes 

8718 

8720 

8722 

21.7% 

10.8% 

17.4% 

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