Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain tube or pipe fittings, of iron or steel, originating in the People' s Republic of China, Croatia and Thailand, and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed
Date: 1996-03-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, Croatia, Thailand, anti-dumping duty, piping

ft ft 
ft ft 

* 

ft 

ft*ft 

COMMISSION  OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  10*  10% 
COM(%)  8^  final 

Proposal  for  a 
COUNCIL  REGULATION  (EC) 

imposing  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  certain  tube  or  pipe  fittings, 
of  iron  or  steel,  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China,  Croatia  and  Thailand, 
and  collecting  definitively  the  provisional  duty  imposed 

(presented  by  the  Commission) 

KX PIAN A I OK Y  M KMOR A INI) 11M 

Commission  Regulation  (EC) No 23 18/95(,) imposed  provisional  anti-dumping  duties on 
imports  of  certain 
the 
People's  Republic  of  China,  Croatia  and  Thailand. 

tube  or  pipe  fittings,  of 

iron  or  steel,  originating 

in 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  149/96(2) extended  the  validity  of  this  duty  for  a period  of 
two  months  expiring  on  4  April  1996. 

Interested  parties  who  so  requested  were  granted  hearings  and  the  opportunity  to  make 
known  their  views  on  the  provisional  and  definitive  findings 

In  their  written  submission,  the  cooperating  Chinese  exporters  contested  some  of  the 
preliminary  findings  of  the  Commission,  in  particular,  with  regard  to  the  like  product, 
the  choice  of  Thailand  as  suitable  analogue  country  to  determine  normal  value,  the 
definition  of  the  Community  industry,  cumulation  of  the  dumped  imports,  cause  of 
injury  and Community  interest.  These comments were examined  and, where appropriate, 
taken  into  account  in  the  final  conclusion.  However,  the  arguments  put  forward  by  the 
Chinese  exporters  were  not  considered  to  warrant  any  change  in  the  method  used  to 
make the provisional  assessment  of  dumping,  injury,  causation  and  Community  interest. 

In  the  absence  of  further  evidence  from  any  of  the  other  parties  concerned  in  this 
proceeding,  the  preliminary  findings  as  set  out  in  Regulation  (EC)  No  2318/95  are 
confirmed  and it  is therefore  considered  in the  Community  interest  to impose  definitive 
anti-dumping  measures  and  to  collect  definitively  the  provisional  duty  imposed. 

Provisional  measures took  the form  of anti-dumping  duties, imposed  in accordance  with 
the  "Lesser  duty  rule"  at  rates  based  either  on  the  injury  or  the  dumping  margin 
established.  The  provisional  duty  calculation  method  being  confirmed,  definitive  anti 
dumping  duties  should  be  the  same  as  the  amounts  of  the  provisional  duties. 

Having  been  informed  of  the  final  results  of  the  investigation,  the  Croatian  and 
Thai  producers/exporters  offered  undertakings  within the meaning of  Article  10(2)(b) of 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  2423/88.  The  Commission  considers  the  undertakings  as 
acceptable  since  they  would  eliminate  the  injurious  effects  of  the  dumped  imports  and 
could  be  satisfactorily  monitored. 

the  Commission  of  their 

The  Chinese  exporters  informed 
to  propose 
undertakings  together  with,  allegedly,  an  offer  of  the  Chinese  authorities  (MOFTEC)  to 
control  the  exports to the Community.  Since  no concrete  offers  by  MOFTEC  nor  by  the 
exporters  were  subsequently  received,  the  Commission  considered  that  it  had  no 
alternative  but  to  propose  the  imposition  of  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  on  the 
Chinese  products,  and  informed  the  exporters  concerned  accordingly. 

intention 

When  the  Advisory  Committee  was  consulted  on  the  acceptance  of  the  undertakings 
offered  by  Croatian  and  Thai  exporters, one Member  State  raised objections.  Therefore, 
in  accordance  with  Articles  9  and  10(1)  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2423/88,  the 
Commission  sent  a  report  to  the  Council  on  the  results  of  the  consultations  and  a 
proposal  that  the  investigation  be  terminated  by  the  acceptance  of  undertakings.  Unless 
the Council  decides otherwise within  one month, it will  be possible to adopt the  decision 
accepting  the  undertakings  from  the  exporters  concerned. 

OJ  No  L  234,  3.10.1995,  p. 4. 
OJ  No  L  23,  30.1.1996,  p.  1. 

In  these  circumstances,  the  Commission,  pursuant  to  Article  12  of  Regulation  (EEC) 
No  2423/88,  proposes  to  the  Council  to  impose  residual  definitive  anti-dumping  duties 
on  imports  from  Croatia  and  Thailand  effected  by  companies  other  than  those  having 
offered  undertakings.  The  rates  applicable  should  be  38.4°»  foi  Croatia  and  58 9%  for 
Thailand.  For  the  People's  Republic  of  China,  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  at  a  rate 
of  58.6%  should  be  imposed  for  all  producers  and  exporters 

The  amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  pursuant  to 
Regulation  (EC)  No  2318/95  are  proposed  to  be  definitively  collected  in  full. 

The  Commission  intends, subject  to the  outcome  of  the  procedure  mentioned  in  point  9 
above,  to  publish  the  Decision  accepting  the  undertakings  offered  by  the  Croatian  and 
Thai  exporters  at  the  same  time  as  the  Council  Regulation. 

Proposal  for  a 
ÇQUNCJÏ^RlïGUlATJON  (EC) 

imposing  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  certain  tube  or  pipe  fittings, 
of  iron  or  steel,  originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China,  Croatia  and  Thailand, 
and  collecting  definitively  the  provisional  duty  imposed 

THE  COUNCIL  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Community, 

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  3283/94  of  22  December  1994  on  protection 
against  dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community0*,  as  last 
amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1251/95(2),  and  in  particular  Article  23  thereof, 

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2423/88  of  1  I  July  1988  on  protection 
against  dumped  or 
the 
European  Economic  Community(3),  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  522/94(4),  and  in 
particular  Article  12  thereof, 

countries  not  members  of 

subsidized 

imports 

from 

Having  regard 
Advisory  Committee, 

to 

the  proposal  submitted  by 

the  Commission  after  consulting 

the 

Whereas: 

A.  PROVISIONAL  MEASURES 

(1)  The  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  2318/95rS|,  hereinafter 

to  as 
"the  provisional  duty  Regulation",  imposed  a provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports 
into  the  Community  of  certain  tube  or  pipe  fittings,  of  iron  or  steel,  originating  in  the 
People's  Republic  of  China,  Croatia  and  Thailand. 

referred 

By  Regulation  (EC)  No  149/96(6),  the  Council  extended  the  validity  of  this  duty  for  a 
period  of  two  months  expiring  on  4  April  1996. 

B.  SUBSEQUENT  PROCEDURE 

(2)  Subsequent  to the imposition  of the provisional  anti-dumping  duty, the interested  parties 
who  so  requested  were  granted  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  by  the  Commission.  Some 
of  these  parties  also  presented  written  submissions  making  known  their  views  on  the 
provisional  findings. 

<u  OJ  No  L  349,  31.12.1994,  p. 1 

OJ  No  L  122, 2.6.1995,  p.l. 
OJ  No  L  209,  2.8.1988,  p.  1. 
OJ  No  L 66,  10.3.1994,  p.  10. 
OJ  No  L234,  3.10.1995,  p. 4. 
OJ  No  L 23,  30.1.1996,  p.  1. 

(3)  The  Commission  continued  to seek  and  verify  all  information  it deemed  to be  necessary 
for  its definitive  findings.  Upon  request,  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and 
considerations  on  the  basis  of  which  it  was  intended  to  recommend  the  imposition  of 
a  definitive  duty  and  the  definitive  collection  of  amounts  secured  by  way  of  a 
provisional  duty. They  were also  granted  a period  within  which  to make  representations 
subsequent  to  the  disclosure. 

(4)  The  oral  and  written  comments  submitted  by  the  interested  parties  were  examined  and, 

where  appropriate,  were  considered  in  the  Commission's  definitive  findings. 

(5)  Owing  to  the  complexity  of  the  investigation  and  the  large  volume  of  data  and 
submissions  received  from  the  parties  concerned,  resulting  in  numerous  requests  for 
extension  of  deadlines,  which  were  granted  by  the  Commission  when  justified  by  the 
circumstances,  the  investigation  could  not  be  concluded  within  the  period  specified  in 
Article  7(9)  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2423/88. 

C.  PRODUCT  UNDER  CONSIDERATION  AND  LIKE  PRODUCT 

(6)  Having  excluded  stainless  steel  fittings  from  the  scope of the proceeding  for  the  reasons 
stated  in  recitals  (9)  and  (10)  of  the  provisional  duty  Regulation,  the  Commission  had, 
for  the purpose  of the preliminary  findings,  determined  that  all  other  steel  fittings  under 
consideration  originating  in  the  exporting  countries  concerned  were  identical  to,  or 
closely  resembled,  those  produced  and  sold  in  the  Community  and  were  to  be 
considered  "like  products"  within  the  meaning  of  Article  2(12)  of  Regulation  (EEC) 
No  2423/88. 

(7)  The 

two  cooperating  Chinese  exporters  and  one 

the 
Chinese  product  (hereinafter  called  "the  Chinese  parties")  claimed 
fittings 
originating  in  China  were,  due  to  their  inferior  quality,  not  like  products  to  the  fittings 
produced  in  the  Community.  Furthermore,  it  was  argued  that  the  range  of  uses  for  the 
Chinese  product  was  limited,  in  that  it  was  often  rejected  by  customers  and  that  it  had 
to  be  reworked  in  some  cases  before  resale. 

importer  of 
that 

independent 

(8)  With  respect 

to 

these  arguments, 

the  Commission  has  established  during 

the 
investigation  that  while  there  are  some  quality  differences  between  the  Chinese  fittings 
and  the  Community  products,  all  fittings  are  manufactured  using  basically  the  same 
production  technology  and  in  accordance  with  internationally  recognized  standards  and 
specifications,  resulting  in  products  which  are  alike  in  their  essential  physical  and 
technical  characteristics.  It  was  also  established  that  the  Chinese  fittings  are  marketed 
through  similar  distribution  channels,  that  their  basic  application  and  use  are  identical 
and  that  there  is  a  high  degree  of  interchangeabilité  with  the  fittings  marketed  in  the 
the 
Community  by  other  operators.  Thus, 
Chinese  fittings  compete  with  the  fittings  imported  into  the  Community  from  Croatia 
and Thailand  and with those produced  and sold by the Community  industry.  This applies 
also  to those  fittings  which  are  resold  after  reworking.  Therefore,  the  allegations  made 
by  the  Chinese  parties  with  regard  to  the  "like  product"  issue  are  rejected. 

investigation  has  shown 

that 

the 

(9)  As  no  comments  have  been  presented  by  the  other  parties  regarding  the  product  under 
consideration  and  the  like  product,  the  findings  set  out  in  recitals  (7)  to  (12)  of  the 
provisional  duty  Regulation  are  confirmed. 

D.  DUMPING 

1. 

Normal  value 

(a)  Choice  of  analogue  country 

(10)  One  of  the  cooperating  Chinese  exporters  contested  the  choice  of  Thailand  as a  suitable 
analogue  market  economy,  alleging  that  the  cost  of  production  for  the  tube  or  pipe 
fittings  concerned  in  Thailand  and  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  were  not 
comparable.  It  was  argued  that  Thailand  had  no  domestic  production  of  steel  tubes, 
which  are the  basic  raw  material  for  the  manufacture  of the  fittings  in question,  and had 
therefore  to rely  exclusively  on  imported  steel  tubes.  It was alleged that China,  however, 
had  a  large  domestic  capacity  and  production  of  these  steel  tubes  and  that  the 
input  costs  of  the  Chinese  fittings  producers  for  the  basic  raw  material  were  therefore 
significantly  lower  compared  to  those  of  the  Thai  producers 

(11)  It  should  first  be  noted  that  the  Chinese  exporter  did  not  produce  any  evidence  to 
substantiate  its claim.  In  addition,  no  suggestions  as to the  choice of  a more  appropriate 
analogue  country  has  been  received,  neither  from  the  Chinese  exporter  in  question  nor 
from  any  of  the  other  parties  concerned. 

(12)  Furthermore,  it  has  to  be  pointed  out  that  the  People's  Republic  of  China  is  a 
non-market  economy  country,  i.e.  a  country  where  the  means  of  production,  in  full  or 
in  part,  belong  to  or  depend  on  the  State.  This  involvement  prevents  the  establishment 
of  reliable  domestic  prices  and  costs,  which  cannot  therefore  be  used  for  establishing 
normal  value. 

(13)  As  regards  more  specifically 

the  determination  of  normal  value  in  Thailand,  the 
Commission,  at  the  stage  of  provisional  findings,  had  already  taken  account  of  the 
particular  situation  of  the Thai  producers  with  regard  to their  supply  of  steel  tubes  used 
as the basic raw material  for  the production  of the fittings  concerned.  In fact,  since  there 
is no  production  of  steel  tubes  in  Thailand,  the  entire  raw  material  in  the  form  of  steel 
tubes  was  imported  by  the  Thai  producers,  and  purchased  at  world  market  prices. 
The  verification  on-spot  revealed  that  import  charges  and  indirect  taxes  were  assessed 
on  all  imported  steel  tubes.  It  was  found,  however,  that  the  charges  were  refunded  in 
respect  of  those  fittings  which  were  exported  to  the  Community.  For  the  purpose  of 
ensuring  a  fair  comparison,  therefore,  and  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)(b)  of 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  2423/88,  normal  value  in  Thailand  was  reduced  by  an  amount 
corresponding  to  import  charges  and  indirect  taxes  levied  on  the  steel  tubes  used  to 
manufacture  the  tube  fittings  concerned  which  were  sold  on  the  domestic  market 
in  Thailand. 

(b)  Final  findings  on  normal  value 

(14)  As no new  evidence  has  been  submitted  by  the  other  parties  since the  imposition  of  the 
provisional  duty,  the  findings  on  normal  value  with  regard  to  all  exporting  countries 
concerned  as  set  out  in  recitals  (13)  to  (27)  of  the  provisional  duty  Regulation  are 
therefore  considered  to  be  definitive. 

2. 

Export  price 

( 15)  Export prices for  all producers and exporters of the countries concerned  were  determined 
as  explained  in  recitals  (28)  to  (31)  of  the  provisional  duty  Regulation  and  are,  in  the 
absence  of  any  relevant  new  arguments,  considered  definitive 

3. 

Comparison 

(16)  Normal  values, by  product  type,  were  compared  at  an  ex-factory  level  with  the  export 
price  for  the corresponding  type  at the same  level  of  trade, based  on  a weighted  average 
for  the entire investigation  period.  Adjustments  were made, where appropriate, in  respect 
of  differences  affecting  price  comparability,  i.e.  import  charges  and  indirect  taxes, 
transport,  insurance,  handling  and  ancillary  cost  as  well  as  packing,  payment  terms  and 
salesmen's  salaries.  Since  no  relevant  new  information  was  provided,  the  findings  and 
conclusions  as  set  out  in  recital  (32)  of  the  provisional  duty  Regulation  are  therefore 
confirmed. 

4. 

Dumping  margin 

(17)  The  weighted  average  dumping  margins  definitively  established  for  the  countries  and 
companies  in  question,  expressed  as percentages  of  the  CIF  Community  frontier  prices, 
customs  duty  unpaid,  are  the  following: 

People's  Republic  of  China: 
Croatia: 
Thailand: 
-  Awaji: 
-  Benkan: 
-  TTU: 

58.6% 
58.6% 

39.5% 
51.3% 
63.4% 

(18)  With  regard  to  the  dumping  margins  for  producers  and  exporters  of  the  countries 
concerned  which  did  not  cooperate  in  this  proceeding,  the  findings  to  apply  the  highest 
dumping  margin  found  for  an exporter  in the country  concerned  as set out  in recital  (36) 
of  the  provisional  duty  Regulation  are,  in  the  absence  of  any  new  arguments,  hereby 
confirmed. 

E.  COMMUNITY  INDUSTRY 

(19)  The  Chinese  parties  challenged  the  Commission's  finding 

in  recital  (40)  of  the 
that  the  complainant  producers  represented  a  major 
provisional  duty  Regulation 
proportion  of  Community  production  of  the  fittings  in  question,  and  could  therefore  be 
considered  to  be  the  Community  industry  within  the  meaning  of  Article  4(5)  of 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  2423/88.  They  argued,  in  particular,  that  following  the  exclusion 
of  stainless  steel  fittings  and  one  Italian  producer  from  the  scope  of  the  investigation, 
the  remaining  producers  could  not  be  considered  sufficiently  representative  of  the 
Community  industry.  They  claimed  further  that  the  sales  of  the  complainant  producers 
largely  comprised  purchased  fittings  from  other  producers 

(20)  With  regard  to  the  first  argument,  the  investigation  revealed  that  fittings  of  stainless 
steel  accounted  only  for  a  small  proportion  and  were  found  not  to  exceed  1%  of  the 
total  production  of  the  complainant  producers. 

the  complaint  on  the  grounds  that  the  products 

(21)  As  far  as  the  exclusion  of  one  complainant  producer  is  concerned,  it  is  confirmed 
that  the  Italian  producer  Tectubi,  mentioned  in  recital  (5)  of  the  provisional  duty 
Regulation,  withdrew  from 
it 
manufactured  were outside the scope of the investigation  and were not imported  into the 
Community  from  the  exporting  countries  concerned.  When  the  Commission  determined 
whether  the  production  of  the  five  remaining  producers  constituted  a  major  proportion 
of  the  total  Community  production,  the  output  of  this  producer  was  indeed  excluded. 
On  this basis, the  remaining  producers  supporting  the  complaint  and having  cooperated 
represented  85% of  the total  Community  production  of  the  products  in  question  during 
the  investigation  period. 

(22)  With  regard  to  the  purchase  of  fitting  types  by  complainant  producers,  it  should  be 
recalled  that  almost  all  producers  in  this  particular  branch  of  the  industry  rely  to  a 
certain  degree  on  the  purchase  of  certain  fitting  types  for  the  reasons  set  out  in 
recital  (38) of the provisional  duty  Regulation.  In this respect,  the investigation  revealed 
that,  for  each  of  the  complainant  producers,  the  volume  of  purchased  fittings  for  resale 
represented  less than  5% of their total  production  of the products  concerned. This  clearly 
corresponded  to the  usual  commercial  behaviour  of  producers  which  had  to  supplement 
the range  of products  manufactured  by  them  with  a small  proportion  of  imports  in  order 
to  satisfy  the  requirement  of  the  customers  and  to  compete  in  the  Community  market. 

(23)  In  consideration  of  the  above,  the  findings  laid  down  in  recitals  (37)  to  (40)  of  the 
provisional  duty  Regulation  with  regard  to  the  definition  of  Community  industry  are 
confirmed. 

1. 

Cumulation  of  dumped  imports 

F.  INJURY 

(24)  The  Chinese  parties  contested  the Commission's  findings  on  cumulation  of the dumped 
imports  and  claimed  that,  due  to  their  inferior  quality,  fittings  from  China  did  not 
compete  in  the  Community  market  either  with  fittings  manufactured  by  Community 
producers,  or  with  those  imported  from  Croatia  and  Thailand.  The  first  aspect  of  this 
argument  has  already  been  dealt  with  in  recitals  (7)  and  (8). 

(25)  It  was found  during the  investigation  that  the products  in  question  imported  from  China, 
Croatia  and  Thailand  were,  on  a  type-by-type  and  dimension-by-dimension  basis,  alike 
in  all  respects,  interchangeable  and  marketed  in  the  Community  within  a  comparable 
period  and  under  similar  commercial  policies.  The  import  volumes  from  each  of  these 
countries  during  the  period  under  consideration  were  significant  and  the  price  trends 
similar. 

(26)  Under  these  circumstances  and  in  the  absence  of  any  new  relevant  information,  the 
conclusions  laid  down  in  recitals  (41)  to  (44)  of  the  provisional  duty  Regulation  with 
regard  to  cumulation  of  the  dumped  imports  are  confirmed. 

2. 

Prices  of  the  dumped  imports 

(27)  Prices  of  the  dumped  imports  from  the  exporting  countries  concerned  were  found  to  be 
significantly  below  the prices  charged  by  the  Community  producers  on  the  Community 
market  during  the  investigation  period.  The  prices  of  the  exporters  concerned  were 
compared  with  the  sales  prices  on  the  Community  market  charged  by  the  complainant 
producers,  on  a  per-product-type  basis  and  on  the  basis  of  weighted  average  prices  at 
the  same  level  of  trade. 

(28)  The  Chinese  parties  claimed  adjustments  in  respect  of  differences  in  quality  between 
their  products  exported  to the Community  and those  sold by  the complainant  producers. 

(29)  It  should  be stressed  that,  as is set out  in  recital  (50) of the provisional  duty  Regulation, 
the  import  prices  were,  for  the  purpose  of  a  fair  comparison  at  a  comparable  level  of 
trade,  adjusted  by  an  importer's  mark-up  which -was established  at  12% in  respect  of  the 
product  imported  from  Croatia  and  Thailand.  In  the  case  of  the  Chinese  product, 
however,  an  additional  adjustment  of  7%,  estimated  on  the  basis  of  evidence  provided 
regarding  the  reworking  cost  of  rejected  fittings,  was  granted  for  such  material 
differences  and  had  already  been  taken 
in  establishing  the  price 
undercutting  margins  referred  to  in  recital  (51)  of  the  provisional  duty  Regulation. 

into  account 

(30)  The  claim  made  by  the  Chinese  parties  has  therefore  to  be  rejected  and  the  margins  of 
price  undercutting  established  provisionally  for  all  exporting  countries  are  confirmed. 

3. 

Situation  of  the  Community  industry 

(31)  It  was  claimed  by  the  Chinese  parties  that  the  Community  producers  were  profitable 

during  the  years  1990,  1991  and  1992  and  therefore  suffered  no  injury. 

(32)  With  regard  to  this  claim  the  investigation  has  shown  that  all  the  producers  concerned 
were  either'in  a  situation  of  minimal  and  reducing  profits  or  recurring  losses,  with  an 
aggravation  of  these  trends  during  the  period  of  investigation. 

4. 

Final  conclusion  on  injury 

(33)  In  the  light  of  the  above  and  in  the  absence  of  any  other  arguments,  the  conclusions  as 
set  out  in  recitals  (59)  and  (60)  of  the  provisional  duty  Regulation,  namely  that  the 
Community  industry  has  suffered  material  injury  within  the  meaning  of  Article  4(1)  of 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  2423/88,  are  confirmed. 

G.  CAUSE  OF  INJURY 

(34)  In  the  provisional  duty  Regulation,  the Commission  concluded  that  the  dumped  imports 
from  the  exporting  countries  in  question  caused  material  injury  to  the  Community 
industry,  on  the  grounds  that  the  Community  producers  had  lost  11.5%  of  the 
Community  market  between  1989  and  the  investigation  period,  while  the  dumped 
imports  had  gained  11.8%  of  the  market  in  the  same  period.  Moreover,  almost  all 
economic  indicators  of  the  Community  industry  were  negative  and  there  was  a  clear 
coincidence  between  the  increase  in  dumped  imports  at  low  prices  undercutting  the 
Community  producers'  prices  and  the  deterioration  of  the  situation  of  the  Community 
industry. 

(35)  The Chinese  parties claimed that the fittings  imported  from  China could  not have caused 
injury  to the  Community  industry  because such  fittings  are, due  to their  inferior  quality, 
not  a  "like  product"  within  the  meaning  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2423/88.  It  was  also 
claimed  that  the  significant  increase  in  imports  of  certain  fittings  of  the  products 
concerned  from  other  third  countries  not  covered  by  this  proceeding,  such  as  Austria 
injury  was 
taken 
and  Switzerland,  should  have  been 
being  determined. 

into  consideration  when 

(36)  With  regard  to  the  first  argument,  the  Chinese  fittings  and  those  produced  and  sold  in 
the  Community  are  to  be  regarded  as  a  like  product,  as  was  definitively  established  in 
recitals  (6)  to  (9).  The  argument  is  therefore  to  be  rejected. 

(37)  With  regard  to  the  increase  of  certain  imports  from  Austria  and  Switzerland,  it  was 
found  during the investigation  that total  imports of the  fittings  under  consideration  from 
Switzerland  had  declined  from  2.813  tonnes  in  1989  to  2.153  tonnes  in  1993, and  that 
those  originating  in  Austria  were  relatively  stable  at  6.251  tonnes  in  1989  and 
6.641  tonnes  in  1993. Compared  to  the  evolution  of  imports  from  the  above  countries, 
imports  from  China  had jumped  from  451  tonnes  in  1989 to 4  146 tonnes  in  1993, that 
is  to  say,  by  more  than  800%. 

(38)  Moreover,  according to  Eurostat  data, average prices of imports of the  like product  from 
Switzerland  and  Austria  and  from  most  of  the  other  third  countries  not  subject  to  the 
proceeding  were found  to be significantly  higher  than  those of the dumped  imports,  and 
there  was  no  indication  that  the  imports  from  these  countries  were  dumped.  It  is 
therefore  considered  unlikely  that  the  imports  from  other  third  countries  have  caused 
injury  to  the  Community  industry.  In  any  event,  even  if  they  had  contributed  to  the 
injury  suffered  by  the  Community  industry,  the  fact  remains  that  the  dumped  imports 
from  the  three  exporting  countries  concerned  have,  taken  m  isolation,  caused  material 
injury  to  the  Community  industry. 

The  preliminary  findings  with  regard  to  causation  as  set  out  in  recitals  (61)  to  (69)  of 
the  provisional  duty  Regulation  are  therefore  confirmed. 

H.  COMMUNITY  INTEREST 

(39)  As  was  stated  in  recital  (70)  of  the  provisional  duty  Regulation,  in  assessing  the 
Community  interest,  the  need  to  eliminate  the  trade  distorting  effects  of  injurious 
dumping  and  to  restore  effective  competition  should  be  given  special  consideration.  In 
recital  (71) to  (75) of the  provisional  duty  Regulation,  the  Commission,  for  the  purpose 
of  the  provisional  findings,  had  determined  that,  in  accordance  with  Article  11  of 
Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, the imposition  of provisional  anti-dumping  measures was 
in  the  interests  of  the  Community. 

(40)  The  Chinese  parties  argued  that  the  adoption  of  anti-dumping  measures  would  not  be 
in the interests of the Community  user industry.  This claim  was not substantiated  by  any 
relevant  evidence. In addition, no observations  were  received  from  any  Community  user 
of  the  product  concerned  imported  from  China,  Croatia  or  Thailand  following  the 
imposition  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties. 

(41)  In  the  absence  of  any  further  substantiated  evidence,  the  conclusion  reached  in 
recital  (75)  of  the  provisional  duty  Regulation,  that  it  is  in  the  Community  interest  to 
impose  anti-dumping  measures  to eliminate  the  injurious  effects  of the  dumped  imports 
under  consideration,  is  confirmed. 

L  UNDERTAKING 

(42)  Having  been  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of  which  it 
was  intended  to  recommend  the  imposition  of  definitive  anti-dumping  duties,  the 
Croatian  producer  and  the  three  Thai  producers  which  had  cooperated 
in  this 
investigation  offered  undertakings  concerning  their  exports  of  the  products  in  question 
to  the  Community.  After  examination  of  these  offers,  the  Commission  considered  the 
undertakings  acceptable  since  they  would  eliminate  the  injurious  effects  of  dumping  in 
accordance  with  Article  10(2)(b)  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2423/88  and  could  be 
satisfactorily  monitored. 

(43)  The  Commission  consulted  the  Advisory  Committee  on  the  acceptance  of  these 
undertakings  and,  since  some  objections  were  raised,  sent  a  report  on  the  consultations 
to  the  Council.  In  accordance  with  Articles  9  and  10  (1)  of  Regulation  (EEC) 
No  2423/88,  the  undertakings  offered  were  accepted  by  Commission  Decision 
96/..../EC(7). 

(44)  Notwithstanding  the  acceptance  of  the  undertakings  offered  by  the  Croatian  and 
Thai  exporters,  a residual  duty  should  be imposed  on  imports  of the products  concerned 
originating  in  Croatia  and  Thailand,  in  order  to  underpin  the  undertakings  by  avoiding 
their  circumvention. 

(45)  As  far  as  the  People's  Republic  of  China  is  concerned, 

the  two  cooperating 
Chinese  exporters  informed  the  Commission,  following  the  disclosure  of  definitive 
findings,  of  their  intention  to  propose  an  offer  of  an  undertaking  together  with, 
allegedly,  an  offer  from  the  Chinese  authorities  (MOFTEC)  with  regard  to  the  control 
of  the  exports  to  the  Community.  However,  no  concrete  offer  from  the  Chinese 
exporters  concerned  nor  any  proposal  from  the  Chinese  authorities  with  a  view  to 
establishing  an  export  control  system  was  received  by  the  Commission. 

'  In these  circumstances,  it has been  concluded  that  definitive  measures with  regard to the 
People's  Republic  of  China  should  be  imposed  in  the  form  of  ad  valorem  anti-dumping 
duties 

(?) 

See  page 

of  this  Official  Journal 

10 

J.  DUTY 

(46)  Provisional  measures  took  the  form  of  ad  valorem  anti-dumping  duties.  They  were, 
depending  on the country  concerned,  imposed  m accordance  with  the  "Eesser  duty  rule" 
at rates based  either on  the  injury  elimination  margin  or  the dumping  margin  established 
Where the injury  margin  was lower  than  the  respective  dumping  margin  found,  the  duty 
was based  on  this  lower  level.  In  all  other  cases  the  provisional  duty  was  limited  to  the 
dumping  margin.  Since  no  change  was  made  to  the  dumping  and  injury  findings,  the 
provisional  findings  as set  out in  recitals  (76) to (82) of the  provisional  duty  Regulation 
are  hereby  confirmed. 

(47)  For  exporters  in  each  of  the  exporting  countries  concerned  who  neither  replied  to  the 
Commission's  questionnaire  nor  otherwise  made  themselves  known  and  in  the  absence 
of  any  comments  on  the  approach  outlined  in  recital  (81)  of  the  provisional  duty 
Regulation,  the  highest  level  of  duty  established  for  an  exporter  in  the  country 
concerned  should  apply. 

(48)  For  the  reasons  outlined  in  recital  (34) of the  provisional  duty  Regulation,  a single  duty 
has been  established  for  all  producers  and  exporters  concerned  of the  People's  Republic 
of  China. 

(49)  On  this  basis,  definitive  anti-dumping  duties,  in  the  form  of  ad  valorem  duties,  should 

be  imposed  as  follows: 

-  People's  Republic  of  China: 
-  Croatia. 
-  Thailand: 

Rate  of  duty 

58.6% 
38.4% 
58.9%. 

These  duties  should  not  apply  to  imports  of  the  products  concerned  manufactured  and 
exported  to the Community  by the Croatian  and Thai  exporters  from  which  undertakings 
have  been  accepted. 

K.  COLLECTION  OF PROVISIONAL  DUTY 

(50)  In view  of  the  level  of  dumping  margins  found  and  the seriousness  of  the  injury  caused 
to the  Community  industry,  it is considered  necessary  that  the  amounts  secured  by  way 
of  the provisional  anti-dumping  duty  for  all  companies  should  be  definitively  collected 
in  full, 

HAS  ADOPTED  THIS  REGULATION: 

Article 

A  définitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  imposed  on  imports  of  tube  or  pipe  fittings 
(other  than  cast  fittings,  flanges  and  threaded  fittings),  of  iron  or  steel  (not  including 
stainless  steel),  with  a  greatest  external  diameter  not  exceeding  609.6  mm,  of  a  kind 
used  for  butt-welding  or  other  purposes,  falling  within  CN  codes  ex  7307  93  1  I 
(Taric  code  7307 93  11 *90), ex  7307 93  19 (Taric code  7307  93  19*90), ex  7307  99  30 
(Taric  code  7307  99  30*91)  and  ex  7307  99  90  (Taric  code  7307  99  90*91)  and 
originating  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China,  Croatia  and  Thailand 

11 

2. 

The  rate  of  duty  applicable  to  the  net,  free-at-Community-frontier  price,  before  duty 
shall  be  as  follows: 

People's  Republic  of  China 
Croatia 
Thailand 

58.6% 
38.4% 
58.9% 

8881 
8851 

Rate  of  duty 

Taric  additional  code 

with  the  exception  of  imports  of  the  products  concerned  which  are  manufactured  and 
sold  for  export to the Community  by  the following  companies  from  which  undertakings 
have  been  accepted: 

(a)  Croatia  (Taric  additional  code  8880): 

-  Zeljezara  Sisak,  Zagreb, 

(b)  Thailand  (Taric  additional  code  8850): 

-  Awaji  Sangyo  (Thailand)  Co.  Ltd.,  Samutprakarn, 
-  Thai  Benkan  Co.  Ltd.,  Prapadaeng-Samutprakarn, 
-  TTU  Industrial  Corp.  Ltd.,  Bangkok. 

3. 

Unless  otherwise  specified, 
shall  apply. 

the  provisions 

in  force  concerning  customs  duties 

Article  2 

The  amounts  secured  by  way  of 
Regulation  (EC)  No  2318/95  shall  be  definitively  collected  in  full 

the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  pursuant 

to 

Article  3 

This  Regulation  shall  enter  into  force  on  the  day  following  that  of  its  publication  in  the 
Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities. 

This  Regulation  shall  be  binding  in  its  entirety  and  directly  applicable  in  all  Member  States. 

Done  at  Brussels, 

For  the  Council 
The  President 

12 

ISSN  0254-1475 

COM(96) 83 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

02  11 

Catalogue number  : CB-CO-96-091-EN-C 

ISBN 92-78-00987-3 

Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg 

13