Council Regulation (EC) No 348/2000 of 14 February 2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Croatia and Ukraine and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed
Date: 2000-02-14
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Croatia, Ukraine, anti-dumping duty, import, piping, tube

17. 2. 2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 45/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 348/2000

of 14 February 2000

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or
non-alloy steel originating in Croatia and Ukraine and collecting definitively the provisional duty
imposed

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22
December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from
countries not members of the European Community (1), and in
particular Articles 9(4) and 10(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission
after consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

By Regulation (EC) No 1802/1999 (2)
(hereinafter
referred to as the ‘provisional Regulation’) the Commis-
sion imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on
imports into the Community of certain seamless pipes
iron or non-alloy steel originating in
and tubes of
Croatia and Ukraine.

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE

Following the imposition of a provisional anti-dumping
duty, the interested parties which so requested were
granted an opportunity to be heard. Parties were
informed of the essential facts and considerations on the
basis of which it was intended to recommend the impos-
ition of a definitive anti-dumping duty and the definitive
collection, at the level of this duty, of amounts secured
by way of the provisional duty. They were also granted a
period within which to make representations subsequent
to this disclosure.

1. Product concerned

(4)

(5)

(6)

It is to be recalled that recital 7 of the provisional
Regulation described the product concerned as seamless
pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel, of a kind used for oil
and gas pipelines, of an external diameter not exceeding
406,4 mm; seamless tubes of circular cross-section, of
iron or non-alloy steel, cold-drawn or cold-rolled; other
tubes of circular cross-section, of iron or non-alloy steel,
of an external diameter not exceeding 406,4 mm, here-
inafter referred to as ‘seamless tubes’.

The claim has been repeated that seamless tubes should
be divided into two separate products concerned,
i.e,
commercial steel grade tubes and steel
line pipes for
oil/gas applications and that any injury suffered by the
Community industry should be analysed separately for
each product.

The alleged distinction is based on the ground that
commercial tubes and line pipes are not interchangeable,
given the specific certification required for oil/gas
applications. It has also been argued that the higher
costs of producing line pipes preclude their sale for
non-oil/gas
it has been
alleged that commercial tubes are used in building and
infrastructural applications whereas line pipes are used
in the oil and gas industries and that both products are
sold through different sales channels, with line pipes
being sold directly to end-users rather than to traders.

applications. Furthermore,

(3)

The oral and written comments submitted by the inter-
ested parties were considered and, where appropriate,
the definitive findings have been changed accordingly.

(7)

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation

(EC) No 905/98 (OJ L 128, 30.4.1998, p. 18).

(2) OJ L 218, 18.8.1999, p. 3.

It was found that all seamless tubes have the same basic
physical and technical characteristics. Although there is
a wide range of different types, varying according to
external diameter, wall thickness, steel grade and tech-
nical specifications, no clear dividing line was found to
exist between them.

L 45/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17. 2. 2000

(8)

(9)

Furthermore, the investigation showed that all types of
seamless tube were sold to both traders and end-users. A
clear distinction between sales channels, although per se
not relevant, could therefore not be established.

Finally, all seamless tubes were found to have essentially
the same use. Although they are used in many different
industries such as the construction, automobile, oil and
petroleum industries, power plant and boiler construc-
tion, pneumatics and hydraulics, and engineering and
although it is accepted that not every user is able to use
every type of seamless tube, they are all considered to
have the same basic application.

(16)

(10) While certain types of seamless tube are clearly intended
for specific applications (e.g. oil pipelines), such pipes
can also be used in less specific applications. Further-
more, it was found that commercial tubes could also be
used in a wide range of applications. All this shows the
existence of a large degree of competition and interchan-
geability between all product types.

(11)

In conclusion, the provisional finding that all seamless
tubes, whether commercial tubes or line pipes form one
single product is confirmed.

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘basic Regulation’) are
confirmed.

D. DUMPING

1. Croatia

Since the adoption of the provisional measures, no argu-
ments have been submitted concerning the calculation
of normal value, the determination of the export price,
the comparison of the normal value with the export
price, or the establishment of the dumping margin. The
findings as set out in recitals 13 to 19 of the provisional
Regulation are
confirmed. The dumping
margin, and the residual margin, therefore remain at the
same level,

i.e. 40,8 %.

therefore

2. Ukraine

a) Normal value

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

2. Like product

It is to be recalled that in recitals 11 and 12 of the
provisional Regulation, the Commission found that the
seamless tubes imported from the countries concerned,
the seamless tubes produced and sold in the Community
by the Community industry and those domestically sold
on the Croatian market were alike in their basic physical
and technical characteristics and were found to have
essentially the same uses.

It has been claimed that Community produced seamless
tubes were different
from those imported from the
Ukraine, since the latter were manufactured to different
standards from those used by the Community industry,
and that the specific testing requirements applied to
Community produced seamless tubes meant that the
production processes were different.

The investigation has shown that both the Community
industry and the Ukrainian exporters produce to the
same or similar national and international standards.
Information provided by the Ukrainian exporters shows
that
exported to the Community,
whether commercial tubes or line pipes, conform to
industry standards such as DIN, API and ASTM, as do
those produced by the Community industry.

seamless

tubes

In view of the above, the provisional findings that seam-
less tubes imported from the countries concerned, the
seamless tubes produced and sold in the Community by
the Community industry and those domestically sold on
the Croatian market are like products within the
meaning of Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/1996

(17) After the publication of the provisional Regulation, an
importer objected to the selection of Croatia as an
appropriate market economy third country for
the
purpose of establishing normal value for Ukraine. This
importer argued that the cost of energy and other inputs
in Croatia was much higher than in Ukraine, that the
Croatian domestic market was monopolised, or at least
dominated, by the sole producer, and that insufficient
evidence had been put forward to justify the representa-
tiveness of Croatian domestic sales.

(18)

It is considered that the argument concerning the higher
Croatian costs is not relevant in that Ukraine is a non-
market economy and any comparison is, by its nature,
unreliable. What is relevant in this context is whether
Ukrainian producers had any absolute or comparative
advantage as compared to Croatia, such as a more effi-
cient use of energy. However, this was not the case.
Moreover, the selection of Croatia was not unreasonable
in that one of the alternatives, Brazil, had been rejected
on the grounds that prices on the Brazilian market were
indeed too high due to the domination of one producer.
Croatia, however, was importing the product concerned
as well as exporting it, so there was an element of
competition on its domestic market.
In addition,
domestic sales were representative and amounted to
more than 5 % of
to the
Community by volume. Finally, even though every effort
had been made to investigate other alternatives to Brazil
such as the United States of America and the Czech
Republic, no cooperation had been forthcoming from
either country.

total Ukrainian exports

(19) As no other arguments have been put forward either
concerning the methodology or
the calculation of
normal value, the findings as set out in recitals 20 to 26
of the provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed.

17. 2. 2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 45/3

b) Export price

(20) One exporting producer objected to the fact that in
establishing the export price the Commission had not
taken into account its sales to its related importer in the
the information
Community on the grounds
submitted had been found to be unreliable. Since no
new evidence was submitted to contradict this, the find-
ings set out in recitals 27 and 28 of the provisional
Regulation are confirmed.

that

c) Comparison

(21)

The exporting producers reiterated their claim for an
for differences in physical characteristics
adjustment
because of the lower standards used by the Ukrainian
tube industry as compared to the Community industry.
This claim had been rejected at the provisional stage
because it was insufficiently substantiated. The exporting
producers, however, failed again to back up their argu-
ments and, in the absence of new information, the find-
ings set out in recitals 29 to 31 of the provisional
Regulation are confirmed.

d) Dumping margin

are sold through the same sales channels and under
comparable sales conditions, thus competing with each
other and with the tubes sold by the Community
industry.

(26)

The provisional findings regarding the appropriateness
of the cumulative assessment of imports from Croatia
and Ukraine are therefore confirmed.

b) Prices of the dumped imports

(27)

Price undercutting margins for Croatia and Ukraine were
recalculated in the light of the evidence submitted by
interested parties as regards prices of certain product
categories and the grouping of seamless tubes for the
purpose of price comparisons.

(28) As regards Croatia, the revised weighted average price
the

undercutting
of
Community industry's prices amounts to 14,4 %.

percentage

expressed

as

a

(29) As regards Ukraine, the revised weighted average price
the

undercutting
Community industry's prices amounts to 24 %.

percentage

expressed

of

as

a

(22)

The provisional findings on the dumping margins are
therefore confirmed at 123,7 % for Ukraine.

3. Situation of the Community industry

E. INJURY

a) Preliminary remark

1. Definition of the Community industry

(23)

In the absence of any new information the provisional
findings as regards the definition of the Community
industry, described in recitals 34 to 38 of the provisional
Regulation are confirmed.

2. Imports into the Community from the countries

concerned

a) Cumulation

(24)

(25)

The Croatian exporting producer has argued that
imports
from Croatia should not be cumulatively
assessed with those originating in the Ukraine. In this
respect it was claimed that the volume of imports from
Croatia in the investigation period (hereinafter referred
to as
from
substantially lower
Ukraine, while the prices of these imports were higher. It
was also claimed that Croatian exports have followed
the prices
in the
Community market.

set by the Ukrainian imports

than that

‘IP’) was

The dumping margins have been found to be substantial
for both countries. The volume of imports for both
countries was increasing during the period examined
in both cases, were
reaching significant levels which,
found to be well above de minimis levels. As regards the
prices of the imports, it was found that the prices of
seamless tubes from both countries have significantly
undercut the prices of the Community industry during
the IP. Furthermore, seamless tubes from both countries

(30)

(31)

(32)

Following the publication of the provisional Regulation,
the Commission on 8 December 1999 found that
certain Community producers being part of
the
Community industry in the present proceeding had
infringed Article 81 of the EC Treaty by engaging in
concluded that
anti-competitive practices.
between 1990 and 1995 Dalmine, Mannesmannröhren-
Werke and Vallourec participated in an agreement
providing for the observance of their respective domestic
markets for certain seamless tubes, notably oil country
tubular goods and certain line pipes.

It was

The decision has been examined in order to determine
whether the injury found to have been suffered by the
Community industry derived from the dumped imports
or whether it was caused by the conduct of certain
Community producers themselves.

It should be noted that the period on which the findings
of this investigation were based (1 January 1997 to 31
October 1998) is outside the period during which the
anti-competitive practices have been found to take place.
In view of the fact that these practices took place in a
period prior to that considered in this proceeding and
given that the increase in the volume of imports from
Croatia and Ukraine at dumped prices has coincided
with a deterioration of the situation of the Community
industry, it cannot be concluded that the anti-competi-
tive conduct of certain Community producers contrib-
uted to the injury suffered by the Community industry
in the current proceeding to an extent that would break
the causal
link between the injury suffered by the
Community industry and the imports concerned, within
the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.

L 45/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17. 2. 2000

b) Arguments raised by interested parties on the provisional

G. COMMUNITY INTEREST

findings

(33)

The Ukrainian exporting producers have argued that the
injury
Community industry has not suffered material
within the meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation,
since between 1997 and the IP indicators concerning
productivity and capacity utilisation improved and
market share remained stable. Furthermore, they ques-
tioned the provisional findings on the profitability of the
Community industry. This claim was supported by
certain press articles quoting the improved financial
results of Community seamless tubes producers.

(34)

It should be mentioned that, according to Article 3(5) of
the basic Regulation, none of the factors listed in this
provision can give decisive guidance on whether the
Community industry has suffered injury within the
meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation.

(35) As regards the improvement in the situation of the
Community industry between 1997 and the IP, espe-
cially concerning productivity and capacity utilisation,
this should be seen in the light of the anti-dumping
measures imposed in 1997 against imports of seamless
tubes
from the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland,
Romania, Russia and the Slovak Republic by Regulation
(EC) No 2320/97 (1) Indeed, the intended effect of those
anti-dumping measures was to remove the injury found
to be suffered by the Community industry.

(36)

It should also be noted that, between 1997 and the IP,
the profitability achieved by the Community industry
remained at a level lower than what the industry could
expect under normal conditions of competition, in the
absence of dumped imports. With respect to the relia-
bility of the profitability figures, it should be noted that
they correspond to the information provided by the
Community industry in the course of the investigation
and verified on-the-spot. In terms of the profitability
figures submitted by the Ukrainian exporting producers,
they include products not
it should be noted that
covered by the investigation and relate to a period
outside the period examined in the present investigation.
As
the
Community industry had been unable to regain previ-
ously lost market share. Thus, the Community industry
could not fully benefit from the earlier imposition of
definitive measures on imports originating in the Czech
Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russia and the
Slovak Republic.

regards market

found that

it was

share,

(37)

In view of the above, the provisional findings as regards
the material injury suffered by the Community industry
are confirmed.

F. CAUSATION

(38)

In the absence of any new information the provisional
findings as described in recitals 68 to 73 of the provi-
sional Regulation are confirmed.

(1) OJ L 322, 25.11.1997, p. 1.

(39)

In view of the findings of the Commission mentioned in
paragraph 30, it has been examined whether the imposi-
tion of anti-dumping measures could raise concerns
about competition on this market. In the light of the fact
that the anti-competitive practice were found to have
taken place in a period prior to that considered in this
proceeding, there is no reason to conclude that the
imposition of anti-dumping measures in the present
proceeding would have an impact on the competition
on this market in the future.

(40)

In the absence of any new information on Community
interest, the provisional findings as described in recitals
74 to 83 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

(41)

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)

H. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

1. Injury elimination level

The methodology used for establishing the injury margin
as described in recitals 86 and 87 of the provisional
Regulation is confirmed.

The injury margins revised to take into account the
comments made by interested parties, which have been
described above in recital 27, subsequent to the disclo-
sure of provisional findings are set out below:

Croatia:

23 %,

Ukraine:

38,5 %.

2. Form and level of the definitive measures

The conclusions reached above as to dumping, injury,
causation and Community interest call
for definitive
measures. In view of the diversity of product types, the
anti-dumping duty should be in the form of ad valorem
duties.

In accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation,
for all exporting producers the level of the duty is based
on the lower of the injury or the dumping margin. These
duties
free-at-
Community frontier prices amount to:

a percentage of

expressed as

the

Croatia:

23 %,

Ukraine:

38,5 %.

to the imposition of provisional anti-
Subsequent
dumping measures, the exporting producer in Croatia
and the exporting producers in Ukraine in conjunction
with the Ukrainian authorities offered price undertakings
of the same type as those accepted by the Commission
from other producers in Central and Eastern Europe in
1997 under Regulation (EC) No 2320/97. The elimina-
tion of the injury is achieved by two means: first, a price
undertaking covering imports up to an agreed volume
threshold and, second, an ad valorem duty levied on
imports over and above that threshold.

17. 2. 2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 45/5

(46)

To ensure that the quantity of imports exempted from
the ad valorem duty does not exceed the quantity speci-
fied in the price undertaking, exemption from the anti-
dumping duty is conditional upon the presentation to
Member States' customs services of a valid production
and
the
certificate
containing an exact description of
the goods and a
signed declaration by the producer.

identifying

producer,

clearly

(47)

In order to enable the Commission to monitor compli-
ance with the undertakings effectively, the producers
have also agreed to provide the Commission with
regular and detailed information on their sales for export
to the Community, and to keep available copies of the
production certificates for subsequent verification.

(48) As regards Ukraine,

the undertaking offered by the
Ukrainian exporting producers is a joint one, reflecting
Ukraine's status as a non-market economy country, and
is underpinned by guarantees given by the Ukrainian
authorities to ensure adequate monitoring, particularly
with regard to the anti-dumping duty-free threshold.

(49)

The price undertakings up to a certain volume threshold
and the ad valorem duty for the remainder of the imports
are therefore considered an adequate means of removing
the injury suffered by the Community industry. In the
event of any breach, or suspected breach, of an under-
taking, the Commission would swiftly impose provi-
sional or definitive duties in accordance with Articles
8(9) and (10) of the basic Regulation.

(50)

The Commission has accepted these undertakings.

I. COLLECTION OF PROVISIONAL DUTIES

(51)

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found
for the exporting producers, and in the light of the level
of the injury caused to the Community industry, it is
considered necessary that the amounts secured by way
of the provisional anti-dumping duty under the provi-
sional Regulation should be definitively collected at the
rate of the duty definitively imposed,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on the

1.
following imports originating in Croatia and Ukraine:

— seamless pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel, of a kind used for
oil and gas pipelines, of an external diameter not exceeding
406,4 mm (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 (falling within CN
code 7304 31 99);

— other tubes of circular cross-section, of iron or non-alloy
steel, of an external diameter not exceeding 406,4 mm
(falling within CN codes 7304 39 91 and 7304 39 93).

The

rates of duty applicable

2.
free-at-
Community frontier price of imports of the product described
in paragraph 1 shall be as follows:

to the net,

Country

Manufacturer

Rate of duty

Taric additional code

Croatia

Ukraine

All companies

All companies

23 %

38,5 %

A999

A999

3.

Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.

Article 2

1.
Imports shall be exempt from the anti-dumping duties imposed by Article 1 provided that they are
produced and sold for export to the Community by the companies listed in paragraph 4 which have offered
undertakings accepted by the Commission and provided that the conditions in paragraphs 2 and 3 are met.

2. When the declaration for release for free circulation is presented, exemption from the duty shall be
conditional upon presentation to the competent Member States' customs services of a valid, original
production certificate issued by one of the companies listed in paragraph 4. The production certificate shall
conform with the requirements for such certificates set out in the undertaking accepted by the Commission,
the essential elements of which are listed in the Annex.

3.
The production certificate referred to in paragraph 2 must be presented within three months of its
date of issue. The quantities presented to the Member States' customs services for imports into the
Community free of anti-dumping duty shall not exceed those stipulated on the certificate. When quantities
stipulated on the certificate are exceeded, the excess shall be subject to the duty, and be declared under the
relevant Taric additional code of Article 1(2).

L 45/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17. 2. 2000

Imports accompanied by a production certificate shall be declared under the following Taric addi-

4.
tional codes:

Country

Manufacturer

Taric additional code

Croatia

Ukraine

Zeljezara Sisak d.d., Sisak

Dnepropetrovsk Tube Works, Dnepropetrovsk

Nikopol Pivdennotrubny Works, Nikopol

Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant, Dnepropetrovsk

A064

A065

A066

A067

Article 3

Member States' reports to the Commission pursuant to Article 14(6) of Regulation (EC) No 384/1996, shall
indicate for each release for free circulation, the year and month of import, the CN, Taric and Taric
additional codes, the type of measure, the country of origin, the quantity, the value, the anti-dumping duty,
the Member State of import and, where appropriate, the serial number of the production certificate.

The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties imposed pursuant to Regulation (EC) No
1802/1999 shall be collected at the rate of the duty definitively imposed. Amounts secured in excess of the
definitive rate of anti-dumping duties shall be released.

Article 4

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

Article 5

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

Done at Brussels, 14 February 2000.

For the Council

The President

J. GAMA

17. 2. 2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 45/7

ANNEX

Main elements of the production certificate referred to in Article 2(2) (*)

(a) The number of the certificate.

(b) Identification showing whether the certificate is an original or a copy.

(c) The date of expiry of the certificate.

(d) The following text:

‘Production certificate issued by [name of the company] pursuant to Article 2(2) of Council Regulation No 348/2000
for the exports to the European Company within Taric additional Code [Taric additional code] of certain seamless steel
pipes and tubes.’

In the case of imports from Ukraine

‘Production certificate authenticated by the Ministry of [...] of Ukraine for monitoring pursuant to Article 2(2) of
Council Regulation No 348/2000 for the exports to the European Community within Taric additional Code [Taric
additional code] of certain seamless steel pipes and tubes.’

(e) The name and full address of the relevant exporting producer, including telephone and fax numbers and possible

identification number such as national registration number for incorporated companies.

(f) The name and full address of the customer of the relevant exporting producer, including telephone and fax numbers,

to whom the product has been sold and invoiced by this exporting producer.

(g) The number of the commercial

invoice to which the production certificate relates.

(h) The exact description of the goods,

including:

— a product description sufficient to identify the product, which will be identical to the product description on the

invoice,

— CN code,

— quantity (in metric tonnes).

(i) In the case of imports from Croatia, the name of the official of the company responsible for the issue of the

certificate, and the following signed declaration,

‘I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for export to the European Community of the goods covered by this certificate
is being made within the scope and under the terms of the undertaking by [name of the relevant exporting producer], and
within the permitted volume for anti-dumping duty-free imports into the European Community set out in the
Undertaking accepted by the Commission pursuant to Decision 2000/.../EC [Decision C(2000) 271/2]. I declare that
the information provided in this certificate is complete and correct.’

In the case of imports from Ukraine, the following signed declaration by the exporting producer:

‘I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for export to the European Community of the goods covered by this certificate
is being made within the scope and under the terms of the undertaking by [name of the relevant exporting producer], and
within the permitted volume for anti-dumping duty-free imports into the European Community set out in the
Undertaking accepted by the Commission pursuant to Decision 2000/.../EC [Decision C(2000) 271/2]. I declare that
the information provided in this certificate is complete and correct.’

(j) In the case of imports from Ukraine, space for stamp and signature of an authorised person in the Ministry of [...] of

Ukraine.

(k) Space for use by the competent authorities of the Community.

(*) Each box on the certificate will be in four languages for Croatia, i.e. the language of the country of the producer, English, French

and German for Croatia and in two languages for Ukraine,

i.e. the language of the country of the producer and English.