Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings originating in Brazil, the Czech Republic, Japan, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Thailand
Date: 2000-07-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: anti-dumping duty, import, originating product, piping, third country

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 19.07.2000
COM(2000) 453 final

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty
imposed on imports of certain malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings originating in
Brazil, the Czech Republic, Japan, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of
Korea and Thailand

(presented by the Commission)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

On 29 May 1999, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to
imports into the Community of certain malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings originating in
Brazil, Croatia, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Japan, the People’s
Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Thailand.

The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 449/20001 imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty
on certain malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings originating in Brazil, the Czech Republic,
Japan, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Thailand.

In the same Regulation, it was provisionally concluded that no duty should be imposed on
imports of the product under consideration originating in Croatia and the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia because their market shares were de minimis.

The attached proposal for a Council Regulation is based on the definitive findings of
dumping, injury, causation and Community interest which confirmed that the provisional anti-
dumping measures were warranted. As to the imports originating in Croatia and the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia, the provisional findings are confirmed and the proceeding should be
terminated without measures.

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation which
should be published in the Official Journal no later than 26 August 2000.

1

OJ L 55, 29.2.2000, p.3.

2

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty
imposed on imports of certain malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings originating in
Brazil, the Czech Republic, Japan, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of
Korea and Thailand

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community2, and in
particular Articles 9 and 10(2) thereof,

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

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 449/20003, ("provisional Regulation"),
imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports into the Community of certain
malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings originating in Brazil, the Czech Republic,
Japan, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Thailand, whereas
no duties were imposed on imports originating in Croatia and the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia because their market shares had provisionally been found to be de
minimis.

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE

Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of
which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping duties on imports from
Brazil, the Czech Republic, Japan, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of
Korea and Thailand and not to adopt provisional measures on imports originating in
Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, interested parties who so requested
were granted an opportunity to be heard by the Commission. They also made written
submissions making their views known on the provisional findings.

(3)

The Commission continued to seek and verify all information deemed necessary for
the definitive findings.

2

3

OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p.1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 905/98 of 27 April 1998, OJ L 128, 30.04.1998, p.18.
OJ L 55, 29.2.2000, p.3.

3

(4)

Further verification visits were carried out at
importers/traders which had replied to the questionnaire:

the premises of

the following

–

–

–

Jannone SA, Spain

Nefit BV, The Netherlands

Thisa SA, Spain

(5)

All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of
which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty
and the definitive collection of amounts secured by way of provisional duty. They
were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent
to this disclosure.

(6)

The oral and written arguments submitted by the parties were considered, and, where
appropriate, the provisional findings have been modified accordingly.

C. THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDING

(7)

(8)

Some interested parties reiterated their claim concerning the non-inclusion of certain
third countries in the investigation, namely Bulgaria, Poland, Turkey and USA, in the
sense that this non-inclusion would be discriminatory and therefore invalidate the
initiation of the proceeding.

In this respect, it is confirmed that no proceeding could be initiated as regards Bulgaria
and Poland since no dumping existed on the basis of the evidence of normal value and
export price information for the Bulgarian and Polish products provided by the
complainant
in the same manner as for the countries concerned by the present
investigation. With regard to the imports from USA and Turkey, the information
available indicated de minimis import levels. This claim should therefore be rejected.

D. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE PRODUCT

1. Product under consideration

(9)

(10)

The provisional Regulation described the product under consideration as threaded
malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings ("malleable fittings" or "fittings"), which are
joined by a screwing joining system, falling within CN code ex 7307 19 10. This
definition is hereby confirmed.

Following the disclosure of the provisional findings, one interested party argued that,
in addition to CN code 7307 19 10, other CN codes should also fall within the scope of
the investigation since the product under consideration was also imported into the
Community under these latter codes. It claimed, moreover, that the investigation
should be extended to unthreaded fittings, since these were imported into the
Community, where they were threaded and sold.

(11) With respect to the first point, the imports of malleable fittings verified during the
investigation had in all cases been done under CN code 7307 19 10 which, as set out in
the Notice of Initiation, identifies the product under consideration. Consequently the
import data used in the present investigation correctly relate to the product under
consideration. If there were to be instances in which malleable fittings would be

4

imported under other CN codes, this has to be considered as a misclassification, and
the attention of customs officials will be duly drawn to this issue.

(12) With regard to the second point, unthreaded fittings do not fall within the definition of
the product under consideration. In fact, they are an intermediate product necessitating
further manufacturing steps which give the product under consideration one of its
essential characteristic, i.e. its joining mechanism. As a consequence, unthreaded
fittings as such are not in competition with the product under consideration and are not
the threading
interchangeable with it. Moreover,
represents a significant step in the manufacturing process in terms of value added to
the malleable fitting, in particular in consideration of the high level of labour involved
in that step. Therefore, they cannot be considered to form one single product together
with threaded malleable fittings, i.e. the product under consideration.

the investigation showed that

(13) Given the above, the provisional findings as regards the product under consideration

are hereby confirmed.

2. Like product

(14)

(15)

(16)

In recital (13) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission found that malleable
fittings produced by the Community industry and sold on the Community market as
well as malleable fittings produced in the countries concerned and exported to the
Community were like products, since there were no differences in the basic physical
and technical characteristics and uses of the existing different types of malleable
fittings.

Following the disclosure of the provisional findings, certain interested parties argued
that Community-produced malleable fittings were not a like product to those imported
from the countries concerned, because the cast iron used for the Community-produced
fittings was, in general, white heart, whereas black heart was used for the imported
ones.

The investigation has shown that black heart and white heart fittings undergo a
different annealing process. In the case of white heart fittings, it lasts 80 to 120 hours
at a temperature of 1100°. In the case of black heart fittings, it lasts between 50 to 80
hours, at a temperature of 900°. These different processes result in a differing carbon
content, white heart fittings being almost completely decarburized, whereas the carbon
content of black heart fittings is reduced to a lesser degree. As a result, white heart
fittings are in general somewhat more elastic, resistant and easier to galvanise than
black heart fittings, which, in turn, are easier to thread and are somewhat more suitable
for applications in which pressure tightness is of importance.

(17) However, the investigation has shown that there is no difference in market perception
distinguishing between white heart fittings and black heart fittings as in all respects
other than the carbon content they have closely resembling characteristics, the same
end uses and are thus interchangeable. This has been confirmed by the fact that the
importers/traders which purchase both black heart malleable fittings from the countries
concerned and white heart malleable fittings produced by the Community industry,
sell them to the users without making a distinction between the two grades of material.
As to the users of the product under consideration, the investigation has confirmed that
they do not differentiate between white heart or black heart fittings to any significant
degree.

5

(18)

This is also suggested by the fact that both white heart and black heart fittings are
included in the European Standard EN 10242 and in the international standard ISO 49,
which specify the requirements for the design and performance of the malleable
fittings. As concerns, in particular, the grade of the material to be used, both white
heart and black heart are admitted.

(19) Given the above, and since no new evidence was submitted on this, the provisional

findings as regards the like product are confirmed.

E. FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO CROATIA AND THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF
YUGOSLAVIA

(20) As regards Croatia and The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, it is confirmed that the
volume of imports originating in those countries represented 0,4% and 0,3% of the
total Community consumption, respectively. As import volumes were considered
negligible in accordance with Article 9(3) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96
of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not
members of the European Community (the "Basic Regulation"), the proceeding should
be terminated with respect to imports originating in these two countries.

F. DUMPING

1. Market economy countries

1.1

Normal value

1.1.1 Application of Article 18 of the Basic Regulation

(21) As stated in Section 3.4 of the provisional Regulation, only one Japanese company and
its related importer replied to the Commission's questionnaire for exporting producers.
The information provided by the Japanese company, however, was incomplete and in
some instances incorrect and findings had to be made in accordance with Article 18 of
the Basic Regulation. After adoption of provisional measures, these findings were
reviewed. This led to a substantially revised assessment of the normal value, as
provisionally established.

(22)

(23)

The Thai exporting producer for which normal value was determined in accordance
with Article 18 of the Basic Regulation (see recital (96) of the provisional Regulation)
claimed that the Commission should reconsider its decision to use as facts available
the highest dumping margin found for transactions of this exporter in cases in which
no normal value of other Thai companies was available.

This argument was rejected. The application of Article 18 of the Basic Regulation in
the present case is considered appropriate and necessary in order to avoid giving a
bonus for non-co-operation, thus ensuring a fair treatment vis-à-vis all other parties,
which had fully co-operated in the proceeding.

1.1.2 Normal value based on domestic sales

(24)

The Brazilian exporting producer claimed that Article 2(2) of the Basic Regulation
places the Commission under an obligation to investigate whether the prices of the
domestic sales of product types sold at volumes below 5% of the volume exported to
the Community are representative for the Brazilian market. It also argued that, as the

6

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

average profit margin of such sales was reasonably high, the prices of such sales were
representative and should have been used to establish the normal value.

It is the consistent practise of the Community institutions not to use prices of products
or product types that are not sold in representative quantities in order to determine the
normal value. Only when sales volumes are equal to or exceed the 5% threshold will
the Commission consider that the sales are sufficiently representative to form a basis
for normal value.. No factors were found which would justify a deviation from the
normal practice by using a volume of sales lower than the 5% threshold.

The Brazilian exporting producer stated that
the Commission used different and
inconsistent methodologies in order to establish the percentage of financing expenses
and of other SG&A , on the basis of the turnover for the like product on the one hand
and on the basis of total turnover on the other hand.

This argument cannot be accepted. The investigation revealed that the exporting
producer was unable to show the correctness and reliability of the figures reported in
the reply to the questionnaire and the Commission had therefore no option but to use
facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the Basic Regulation, in order to
establish the amount of finance expenses and of other SG&A . Moreover, no evidence
was provided showing that
the approach followed by the Commission did not
reasonably reflect the expenses incurred for sales of the like product.

The Czech exporting producer contested the fact that the Commission had considered
the producing company, which was at the same time selling on the domestic market,
and its related, wholly owned domestic sales company as one economic entity. It
argued that the Commission should not have added the SG&A expenses of both
companies in order to establish the cost of production, on the grounds that both
companies sold the product concerned to different levels of trade.

(29) As far as the SG&A expenses are concerned it is the Community Institutions’ normal
practice to consider all costs associated with the production and sale of the product
under consideration, irrespective of the fact that these costs were incurred in one single
company or in two or more companies forming one single entity. Moreover the
investigation revealed that one of the characteristics of the two related companies in
question was the absence of a clear distinction between the expenses borne by the
respective legal entities. This was clearly confirmed during the verification when it
was established that the related sales company was booking expenses in its accounting
linked to the activity of the producing company. The
records that were in fact
approach taken at the provisional stage is therefore confirmed.

1.1.3 Constructed normal value

(30)

The Brazilian exporting producer contested the method used to establish the profit
margin when constructing the normal value. It argued that only domestic sales of
product types made in representative quantities in relation to the exported quantities
should be taken into account. It furthermore argued that product types sold on the
domestic market which were not exported at all and certain product types sold on the
domestic market having a different threading than the ones exported to the Community
should have been excluded. In addition, the company claimed that an adjustment for
the profit margin of the latter types, allegedly having a higher profit margin, should at

7

(31)

(32)

(33)

(34)

(35)

(36)

(37)

least have been granted. Finally, it claimed that loss-making sales should not have
been excluded in order to establish the profit margin.

The profit margin used in order to construct normal value has been established in line
with Article 2(6) of the Basic Regulation, namely based on actual data pertaining to
sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by the Brazilian exporting
producer under investigation. In order to consider whether sales were indeed made in
the ordinary course of trade, the Community Institutions have applied their consistent
practice as described in recital (23) of the provisional Regulation, which provides that
loss making sales of a given product type are included in the profit calculation, except
when they represent 20% or more of the total quantity of that type sold on the
domestic market. No information has been provided which would justify a deviation
from normal practice and the results as provisionally established are therefore
confirmed.

The co-operating Korean company disputed the Commission's methodology for
calculating the domestic profit margin, claiming that the calculation of constructed
normal values resulted in unreasonably high margins.

The profit margin used in the constructed value is the accurately assessed and actual
profit realised on all sales in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market, in
line with Article 2(6) of the Basic Regulation and the consistent practice of the
Community institutions.

The same Korean company also submitted that certain selling expenses relating to
domestic sales should be excluded from the domestic SG&A expenses included in the
constructed normal values.

In fact, the relevant selling expenses incurred on domestic sales - packing and
transportation costs – were already deducted to ensure a fair comparison between the
normal value and the export price. This was done based on adjustments claimed and
granted for these expenses in the form of domestic allowances. The correct approach
adopted in the provisional Regulation is therefore confirmed.

The Korean company claimed that for certain exported product types which were not
sold domestically normal value should have been calculated by reference to sales
prices on the domestic market of closely resembling product types.

This argument can in principle be accepted. However, some of the product types sold
domestically in sufficient quantities and that were presented as being comparable with
product types for which no domestic sales existed were seen to differ substantially
both in terms of cost of manufacturing and of their physical characteristics such as
weight, size of exits etc. In order for the Commission to be able to use these prices to
establish normal value the estimation and application of numerous and significant
adjustments would have been required. It was therefore concluded and is hereby
confirmed that the use of constructed normal values in such cases is the most accurate
and appropriate basis for establishing normal value.

1.2

Export price

(38)

The Brazilian exporting producer argued that export sales made via the related
importer in the Community were excluded without any justification.

8

(39)

It has been pointed out in recital (41) of the provisional Regulation that these sales
represent a negligible part of the exports and could as such not have had a material
impact on the findings. In fact, the dumping calculations excluding the quantities sold
via the related importer cover more than 97% of the total quantity exported to the
Community, i.e. a fully representative quantity. It is therefore considered justified to
exclude these sales.

1.3

Comparison

(40)

(41)

The Brazilian exporting producer contested the fact that the Commission did not use
the product control numbers (PCN’s) identifying product types as proposed in the
questionnaire for comparing normal values and export prices.

It is confirmed that the originally proposed PCN's were not retained. This was done
since the on-spot verification showed that product types with different characteristics
resulting in different costs and market values were grouped under the same PCN’s. In
order to make a fair and accurate comparison between normal value and export price
as required by Article 2(10) of
the internal product
categorisation of the company was used. This led to a comparison of normal values
and export prices of identical product types.

the Basic Regulation,

a)

Physical characteristics

(42)

(43)

The Brazilian exporting producer also claimed an adjustment for differences in
physical characteristics between the domestic and export product types.

It should be noted that where the Community Institutions compared domestic normal
types, no further allowance for
values and export prices of identical product
differences in physical characteristics was warranted. For product types for which no
identical types were sold on the domestic market in representative quantities and in the
ordinary course of trade, the normal value was constructed based on the cost of
manufacture of the exported types so that also for those types no further physical
differences existed and therefore no further adjustment was warranted.

(44) One Thai exporting producer objected to the Community Institutions’ decision to
reject a level of trade adjustment (see recital (105) of the provisional Regulation). It
claimed that price differences existed for certain product types depending on their
physical characteristics.

(45) Although the company qualified its claim as a level of trade adjustment, it was in fact
requesting an allowance for differences in physical characteristics. Following the
disclosure of the Commission's provisional findings,
the company substantially
modified the claim made in the questionnaire reply so that it referred to other physical
characteristics than the ones originally specified. The Community Institutions were no
longer in a position to verify the substance of the newly alleged price difference at this
late stage of the proceeding. In this respect it should be noted that the questionnaire
sent to the exporter clearly indicated that it was essential for a claim to be made
accurately and in time to allow the Commission to investigate it. Consequently, the
claim was rejected and provisional findings are confirmed.

9

b)

Import charges and indirect taxes (“duty drawback”)

(46) As announced in recital (47) of the provisional Regulation, the claim made by the
Brazilian exporting producer for an adjustment to the normal value for refund of
certain indirect taxes was further examined. This examination led to the conclusion
that the claim made by the company was excessive and unjustified. The amount that
was actually refunded on export sales made to the Community and at the same time
borne by the product concerned when consumed in Brazil was only a fraction of the
therefore revised
amount claimed. The allowance provisionally granted was
accordingly.

c)

Level of trade

(47)

The Brazilian and the Czech exporting producer reiterated both their claim for an
allowance to the normal value for differences in level of trade with regard to sales
made to an OEM customer in the Community.

(48) Based on the clarifications provided by both companies, adjustments were made. This
was done under Article 2(10)(d)(ii) of the Basic Regulation, as the companies did not
sell at both levels concerned on their domestic markets.

d)

Credit costs

(49)

(50)

The co-operating Korean company alleged that it incurred no credit costs on export
sales and that the calculations should be adjusted accordingly.

This claim was found to be in contradiction with the company's questionnaire
response. The Commission took into account the payment terms agreed with the
customers both in the Community and in Korea and reported by the company in its
own reply to the questionnaire. Consequently the claim was rejected.

e)

Currency conversions

(51)

The Brazilian exporting producer claimed that the Commission should have used daily
exchange rates, instead of the monthly average rates.

(52) Given the important devaluation of the Brazilian Real in January 1999 and the
this argument was accepted and

material
exceptionally daily rates were used for the definitive dumping calculations.

impact on the dumping calculations,

(53)

(54)

The same exporting producer also claimed that the Commission should have used the
exchange rate at the date of payment of the invoice rather than at the date of the
invoice.

The Basic Regulation provides in Article 2(10)(j) that currency conversions shall be
made using the rate of exchange on the date of sale, which was considered to be the
date of invoice. Other alternative dates are the date of contract, purchase order or order
confirmation, but only if those more appropriately reflect the material terms of sale.
However, the exchange rate at the date of payment cannot be used. Consequently the
claim had to be rejected.

10

2.

Non-Market economy countries

2.1

Individual treatment

(55) As stated in the provisional Regulation, the Commission has further investigated the

request for individual treatment made by one of the Chinese producers.

(56) During the IP the company sold most of its production destined for export to a Chinese
state owned trader. Consequently, it had no control regarding prices, quantities or the
destination of its export sales. These tasks were entirely under the control of the state
owned trader. Furthermore, the information provided on export activities was very
incomplete,
to customers in the
Community since the trader did not co-operate.

regarding sales from the trader

in particular

(57) Another Chinese producer claimed to be fully independent from state interference and

stressed that its private status averted any risks of circumvention.

(58) As in the above case the company made most of its export transactions via a Chinese
state owned trader and had no knowledge of the price charged to the Community
customer by the trader. This state interference was sufficient to introduce a risk of
possible future circumvention of the countrywide duty should this company receive its
own individual duty rate. Consequently, the claim could not be accepted.

(59)

(60)

Finally, a third company alleged that the Commission applied the rules regarding
individual treatment in a discriminatory manner by refusing to grant it such treatment
while individual treatment was granted in another case with identical facts. It claimed
that the reason for not receiving individual treatment was that it was subject to certain
laws on foreign investment that provide for tax rebates and salary setting rules, and
that other companies, in other anti-dumping proceedings, although subject to the same
laws nevertheless did obtain individual treatment.

The company was specifically set up in order to obtain an income tax benefit. This tax
benefit was only available for companies which export at least 70% of their production
and the investigation showed that this threshold was fully applied in practice. On this
basis, it was decided that the company was not eligible for individual treatment. It is
also pointed out that, as far as the alleged discrimination is concerned, no company in
similar circumstances received individual treatment.

(61)

In the light of the above it is concluded that the three Chinese companies failed to
demonstrate a degree of independence from the authorities so that
the risk of
circumvention of the countrywide duty is removed. Their requests for individual
treatment are therefore rejected.

3.

Dumping margin for companies investigated

(62)

In the absence of any comments by the interested parties it was decided to apply the
methods set out in the provisional Regulation for co-operating and non co-operating
companies.

(63)

The definitive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at
the Community border, are:

11

3.1

Brazil

Indústria de Fundição Tupy Ltda: 34.8%
Others: 34.8%

3.2

The Czech Republic

Moravské Zelezárny a.s.: 26.1%
Others: 26.1%

3.3

Japan

Hitachi Metals Ltd: 47.3%
Others: 65.7%

3.4

Korea

Yeong Hwa Metal Co. Ltd.: 13.4%
Others: 23.4%

3.5

Thailand

BIS Pipe Fitting Industry Company Ltd.: 22.1%
Siam Fittings Co. Ltd.: 12.4%
Thai Malleable Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.: 6.3%
Others: 22.1%

3.6

China

All companies: 49.4

Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

(64)

(65)

In view of the finding of de minimis market shares for the imports of the product
concerned originating in both Croatia and the Federal republic of Yugoslavia, it was
decided not to calculate a dumping margin for imports of the product concerned from
these countries.

G. DEFINITION OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

Two interested parties reiterated their claim that because one Community producer
imported the product under consideration from certain countries concerned, i.e. from
China and Thailand, it should not be considered as belonging to the Community
industry. Moreover, it was claimed by some interested parties that certain Community
producers imported malleable fittings from certain other third countries, namely
Bulgaria and Turkey, and that therefore, likewise, they should not be considered as
forming part of the Community industry.

(66) As to the first point, the Commission further investigated the issue. However no

evidence of any such imports was found.

(67) As to the second point, the investigation confirmed that these imports, although having
taking place in certain instances, were minimal by comparison with the Community-

12

produced sales of the Community producers concerned, thus not affecting their status
as producers of the like product in the Community.

(68)

Therefore, these arguments should be rejected. For these reasons, and in the absence of
any other new information, the findings on the definition of the Community industry
as described in recitals (133) and (134) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.

H. INJURY

1. Imports from the countries concerned

1.1

Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned

(69)

The interested parties concerned reiterated the argument that their imports should not
be assessed cumulatively with the other imports concerned. These claims were further
analysed, on the basis of the conditions set out in Article 3(4) of the Basic Regulation.

1.1.1 Brazil

(70)

(71)

The Brazilian producing exporter reiterated its claim that exports of malleable fittings
from Brazil should not be cumulated with the exports from the rest of the countries
concerned, in view of the different trade patterns, in particular as regards the import
volume and the pricing.

It should be noted that the dumping margin found for Brazil is substantial. As to the
volume of imports, they were 4.188 tonnes in the IP, corresponding to a market share
of 6,9% and thus were far from being negligible.

(72) As to the conditions of competition between imported products, and the conditions of
competition between the imported products and the like Community product, the
further analysis of the relevant factors has shown that although the trend of Brazilian
import volumes and those of the imports from the other countries concerned were not
in all cases identical during the IIP, the difference among them was not such as to
justify a non-cumulative assessment. Indeed, the trend of the Brazilian imports was
found to be unstable, thus following a similar trend as compared with some of the
other countries concerned, namely Japan, South Korea and Thailand. As regards the
prices of the Brazilian imports, they were likewise found to be unstable: they increased
between 1995 and 1996 by around 13%, then gradually decreased between 1996 and
1998 by around 10% in total and, finally, increased again between 1998 and the IP by
around 2%. A similarly unstable pattern was also found for almost all the other
countries concerned. Therefore, although not being always identical during the IIP the
difference among the prices was not such as to justify a non cumulative assessment.

(73) All

the countries concerned operate within the same or similar channels of
distribution, as confirmed by the fact that some traders imported or purchased the
product under consideration from both various countries concerned and the
Community producers.

(74) As to market perception of the Brazilian imported products and the Community
produced products, the investigation has confirmed that there is no difference, as
evidenced also by the aforementioned similarities found in the distribution channels.

13

(75)

For these reasons, it is concluded that the effect of Brazilian imports should be
assessed cumulatively with the effects of the imports originating in the other countries
concerned.

1.1.2 The Czech Republic

(76)

(77)

The Czech producing exporter argued that exports of malleable fittings from the Czech
Republic should not be cumulatively assessed with those originating in the other
countries concerned on the grounds that they competed neither with the fittings
imported from the other countries concerned nor with those manufactured and sold by
most of the Community industry. The Czech exporting producer in this respect
claimed that its fittings were mainly sold on a limited part of the Community market.

The investigation has however shown that a significant proportion of the Czech
exports was actually directed into several Member States. Moreover, even when
considering that the rest of the Czech exports are concentrated in one Member State
only, this cannot in itself be considered as an element on the basis of which a non-
cumulative assessment could be justified in view of the size of this market, in view of
the significant imports originating in the other countries concerned coming into this
market and in view of the fact the Community industry also has significant sales in
this market.

(78) On this basis, the provisional findings regarding the appropriateness of the cumulative

assessment of imports from the Czech Republic are confirmed.

1.1.3 The Republic of Korea

(79)

The Korean producing exporter argued that exports from the Republic of Korea should
not be cumulated with those from the other countries concerned on the grounds of the
specific technical characteristics of its product, which has taper external threads and
taper internal threads (taper/taper fittings), while in the rest of the Community the
malleable fittings generally have taper external threads and parallel internal threads
(taper/parallel fittings). It was claimed that the Korean imports, which were only made
to the UK market, were in competition only with the fittings of the sole British
producer, which manufactured taper/taper fittings as well. It has been argued moreover
that, during the IP, only a negligible part of the UK market was supplied by
taper/parallel threaded fittings. As a consequence, injurious dumping could, if at all,
only be assessed on a regional basis.

(80) As concerns any regional assessment of injurious dumping, it should be noted that not
all the conditions set out in this respect in Article 4(1)(b) of the Basic Regulation were
met. Indeed, during the IIP, not only the British producer, but also other Community
producers and exporting producers from the countries concerned and from other third
countries sold the product under consideration on the UK market. The investigation
showed moreover that, in particular in the IP, significant quantities of taper/parallel
representing a share of the local
fittings have been sold in the UK market,
consumption of the product under consideration well above 20%, which cannot be
considered negligible.

(81) On this basis, the appropriateness of the cumulative assessment of the imports from

Korea with those originating in the other countries concerned is confirmed.

14

1.1.4 Thailand

(82)

(83)

The Thai producing exporter reiterated its claim that exports of malleable fittings from
Thailand should not be cumulated with the exports from the rest of the countries
concerned, in view of the fact that the Thai imports decreased over the IIP when
expressed as a percentage of the total imports into the Community, i.e. comprising all
imports both from the countries concerned and from the other third countries.

It should be noted, firstly, that according to Article 3(3) of the Basic Regulation,
consideration shall be given to the volume of dumped imports which, when expressed
in relative terms, has to be calculated in relation to production or consumption in the
Community. In the current investigation, the imports from the countries concerned
have been expressed in relation to the consumption in the Community. On this basis,
the market share of Thailand was above 1% during the IP, thus not negligible
according to the Community legislation. Secondly, during the IP, the Thai imports
constituted more than 3% of the overall imports into the Community, thus being
clearly above the WTO de minimis threshold.

imports was not different

(84) As to the import trends observed over the IIP and as shown above, the development of
to the trends observed for the other countries
Thai
concerned, justifying them not to be cumulated with these other countries. Therefore,
having in addition regard to the findings on the dumping which is considerable, and
the channels of distribution used, the appropriateness of the cumulative assessment of
the imports from Thailand with those originating in the other countries concerned is
confirmed.

1.1.5 Conclusion on cumulation

(85) On the basis of the above, the investigation has confirmed that the conditions of
cumulation, as set out in Article 3(4) of the Basic Regulation, are met since for all the
countries concerned dumping margins above the de minimis level and volume of the
imports negligible have been found. Furthermore, as concerns the conditions of
competition between, on the one hand, the imported products and, on the other hand,
the imported products and the like Community product, these were found to be
comparable. Indeed, the investigation showed that, in all cases, the imported products
the Community industry have the same physical and technical
and those of
the pricing trends are similar, significantly undercutting the
characteristics,
that
Community industry's prices, and that all
imported products as well as the
Community-produced products are sold through the same or similar channels of
distribution. Therefore, the provisional findings regarding the appropriateness of the
cumulative assessment of the imports from the countries concerned are confirmed.

1.2

Price undercutting

1.2.1 Adjustments for black and white heart fittings

(86)

Some interested parties claimed that adjustments should be made in the price
comparison between imported products (black heart fittings) and the Community
produced product (in general white heart fittings) on the grounds of the different
perception of the market and of the difference in the production process (in particular
in the annealing process, since white heart malleable fittings commanded a higher cost

15

of production because of the increased energy consumption than black heart malleable
fittings), which was reflected in the selling prices.

a)

Market perception

(87)

In this respect it has been found that, as described above (paragraph 2.2.), in those
instances in which both black and white heart malleable fittings were sold by the same
party, and therefore any distinction in market perception should have been observable,
in terms of pricing
no such distinction was actually observed,
differences. As to the users of the product under consideration, the investigation has
confirmed that they do not differentiate between white heart or black heart fittings. On
the basis of the above, it was therefore not possible to grant an adjustments on the
grounds of the alleged difference between white and black heart fittings.

in any event not

b)

Cost of production and selling price

the data available allowed the detailed verification of

(88) Moreover, as concerns alleged differences in the cost of production and any effects on
the selling prices,
the
manufacturing cost structure of both black and white heart fittings. While the energy
consumption in order to obtain the complete decarburization of white heart fittings is
greater than the energy consumption used to obtain the only partially decarburized
black heart fittings, the investigation has shown not only that the cost for energy
represents a small proportion of the total manufacturing cost, but also that in terms of
actual energy consumption and the cost related thereto, the difference between the two
processes is not significant and depends more on the specific production set up and its
energy efficiency of the producer concerned.

(89)

In addition, as concerns the selling prices, it was found that where Community-
produced black heart and white heart fittings were sold on the same markets, the prices
for black heart fittings, contrary to the claim by some interested parties, were in some
cases even higher. Moreover, information available showed that in those cases where
wholesalers and distributors purchased both black heart malleable fittings from the
countries concerned and white heart malleable fittings from the Community industry,
they often resold them at the same prices and did not specify the difference between
the two in terms of the two grades of cast iron.

(90)

These arguments are therefore rejected.

1.2.2 Adjustments for market segments

(91)

Some interested parties claimed that the market of the malleable fittings falls into three
segments, depending on the price bracket and the reliability of the product as
manufactured by certain Community producers as well as by certain exporting
producers.
the price comparison should be
undertaken on the basis of three different market segments (high, medium, low) in
which different Community and exporting producers were present.

It was consequently claimed that

(92) Although no elements were provided allowing any objective and clear division of the
market in three specific segments, it was examined whether other methods of price
comparison based on such alleged market segments would lead to different results of
the price undercutting. As a result of this examination, no significant differences have
been found as compared to the methodology applied at the provisional stage, i.e. the

16

comparison of the weighted average ex-works prices of the Community producers to
the weighted average export prices of each exporting producer concerned, for each
type of malleable fittings.

(93)

In conclusion, although the investigation has shown that certain differences in
perceived segments may exist, no objective criteria are apparent
to
correspondingly categorise the Community industry and exporting producers.
Therefore, the methodology applied at the provisional stage is confirmed.

in order

1.2.3 Conclusion on price undercutting

(94) Before the above background, price undercutting margins were reviewed on the basis
of the evidence submitted by interested parties and amended where appropriate. As
regards Japan,
the revised weighted average price undercutting expressed as a
percentage of the Community industry's prices decreased to 16,2%. With respect to the
other countries concerned,
the provisional weighted average price undercutting
expressed as a percentage of the Community industry's prices are confirmed.

2.

Situation of the Community industry

2.1

Choice of economic indicators

(95) With respect

to the injury assessment, one interested party argued that

the
determination of the impact of the dumped imports was not valid since certain injury
factors set out in Article 3(4) of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement had not been
examined.

(96)

In this respect it should be noted that the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement and the
Basic Regulation do not require that each factor be analysed in the exactly same way.
Moreover, in the specific case, all the relevant factors considered as having a bearing
on the state of the Community industry have been taken into account in the context of
the injury assessment. The claim is therefore rejected.

2.2

Analysis of trends

(97)

(98)

The Czech exporting producer further alleged that the Community industry had not
suffered material injury in the sense of Article 3 of the Basic Regulation since the
Commission had in several instances taken 1995 as a starting point for its analysis
whereas, had 1996 been taken as a starting point, several economic indicators would
actually show a positive trend.

In this respect it should be noted, firstly, that dumping and the injury suffered by the
Community industry must be found during the IP. In order to establish whether such
injury exists, inter alia, the developments and trends found in the years preceding the
IP are only used in order to have a better understanding of findings relating to the IP.
In this current case, since the investigation period started in April 1998, it has been
deemed appropriate, in order to obtain a meaningful picture of the evolution of the
injury indicators, to take into account at least three calendar years (1995-1997) prior to
the IP. Secondly, even if 1996 were taken as reference year, the result of the injury
analysis would not change. On the contrary, the injury suffered by the Community
industry would be even more evident in the development of certain injury indicators as
profitability and stocks. The other injury indicators would have followed the same

17

negative trend, with the exception of the investments, and of the production volume,
the increase of which however resulted in higher stocks.

(99)

For these reasons, the above argument is rejected

2.3

Conclusion on injury

(100)

In view of the above, the provisional findings as regards the material injury suffered
by the Community industry set in recital (160) of the provisional Regulation, are
confirmed.

1.

Impact of the imports concerned

I. CAUSATION

(101) Some interested parties claimed that the assessment of the causal link was flawed
since the Community industry was able to increase its prices during the IIP, while the
evolution of the production and the production capacity, as well as the decrease of the
employment and the lack of profitability were caused by factors other than the dumped
imports, namely,
the Community industry's decision to rationalise
production and the necessity to comply with the European environmental standards.
Moreover one interested party questioned the provisional finding concerning the
closure of the manufacturing plant of malleable fittings located in Germany, claiming
the producer's facilities had actually been relocated to Austria and, as
that
consequence, this element could not be considered as a sign of the injury suffered by
the Community industry.

in particular,

(102) As a general remark it must be underlined that the injury suffered by the Community
industry must be assessed by reference to the IP. As to the earlier years and the trends
established over these years,
they explain the background underling the injury
established. As regards the current proceeding, the investigation established that the
Community industry undertook restructuring efforts in 1995, with the effect of and as
evidenced by the decrease of production and employment, the significant level of
investments and the low level of profitability in that particular year. The results of
these restructuring efforts began to materialise in 1996, as indicated by the rising
production and the better financial results (profitability improved by 3,6 percentage
points between 1995 and 1996). However, these results and the further benefits which
could have been reasonably expected to accrue to the Community industry from these
efforts have been frustrated by the developments on the market. Indeed, as from 1996,
the import volumes from the countries concerned began to increase and their prices
started to decrease, whereas simultaneously, the Community industry began to suffer a
continuous decline of its sales volume and market share, throughout the rest of the IIP.
The contraction of the sales of the Community industry entailed a rise of its stocks and
a decline of its profitability, which, although rising between 1995 and 1996, then
decreased by 2,3 percentage points between 1996 and the IP to (-9)%.

(103) As regards more specifically the development of the Community industry's sales
prices, the investigation has shown that the rise of 5% between 1995 and the IP of the
average sales price of the Community industry occurred in two phases, one between
1995 and 1996, when the whole market experienced a general price increase, and the
second one between 1997 and 1998, when only the Community industry and other
third countries raised their prices, while the prices of the countries concerned

18

decreased significantly. These price developments should be seen in the light of the
fact that the price pressure of the imports concerned had an impact on the volume of
the sales and on the market shares of the Community industry rather than on its price
level. Indeed, when faced with low-priced imports originating in the countries
concerned, the Community industry had the possibility of either maintaining its prices
with a risk of losing market shares, or following the low prices of dumped imports
with the aim of maintaining the sales volumes. It decided to maintain its prices, but the
consequences on the sales volume had an impact on the profitability, which turned
negative after 1996.

(104) Secondly, as to the development of the Community industry's production volumes, and
in particular the aspect of the closure of the manufacturing plant located in Germany,
the investigation has confirmed that this plant was indeed closed at the end of 1995
and that the related facilities were not relocated to Austria as claimed by one interested
party. Actually only a small amount of stocks was transferred there.

(105) On the basis of the above, the findings as described in recital (170) of the provisional

Regulation are confirmed.

2.

Imports from other third countries

(106) Some interested parties questioned the provisional findings of the Commission on the
effect on the situation of the Community industry of imports of the product under
consideration from other third countries, namely Turkey, Bulgaria and Poland.

(107) According to Eurostat, during the IIP, imports from other third countries decreased in
volume by around 14% while market shares decreased by around 1 percentage point.
As to the prices, they increased on average by around 15% and were 17% higher than
the average prices of the imports from the countries concerned.

2.1

Turkey

(108) More specifically, as concerns Turkey, during the IP the weighted average price of
imports was around 10% higher than the weighted average price of the imports
concerned and, during the IP, its market share remained stable at around 1% of
Community consumption.

2.2

Bulgaria

(109) As to Bulgaria, although the import volumes increased during the IIP from 43 to 1.109
tonnes, in relative terms these imports are not such as to alter the conclusions on the
causal link between the injury suffered by the Community industry and the imports
from the countries concerned: indeed, in the IP, they represented 1,8% of the total
market as compared to a market share of 28,6% of the imports concerned. In addition,
during the IIP their price increased by around 11% and, in the IP, was around 5%
higher than the weighted average price of the imports concerned.

2.3

Poland

(110) With respect to Poland, market shares remained fairly stable during the IIP, and the
average price was around 27% higher than the average price of the imports concerned.

2.4

Conclusion on other third countries

19

(111)

In conclusion, given the above, even if imports from other third countries may have
contributed to the material injury suffered by the Community industry, it is hereby
confirmed that they are not such to have broken the causal link between the dumping
and the injury found.

3.

Substitution effect

(112) Some interested parties questioned the provisional findings as regards the substitution
of fittings made of materials such as copper and plastic for those made of malleable
cast iron and the effect of this alleged substitution on the situation of the Community
industry.

(113) The issue has been further investigated and it has been confirmed that indeed the
substitution of cast iron by different materials, such as copper and plastic, took place
mainly in the 1980's. Afterwards,
the substitution effect slowed down and the
utilisation of malleable fittings remained stable, in particular for those uses where
physical durability, resistance as well as a specific tensile strength and elongation are
required. Therefore, any substitution effect cannot have significantly contributed to the
injury suffered by the Community industry as evidenced by the relatively stable
consumption established in the course of the present investigation.

4. Conclusion on causation

(114)

In the light of the above, the provisional findings as described in recitals (155) to (170)
of the provisional regulation on causation are confirmed.

J. COMMUNITY INTEREST

1. Interest of users

(115) One interested party claimed that the interest of the fire protection industry had not

been duly taken into account.

(116)

It should be noted that no users belonging to the fire protection industry made
themselves known during the investigation. This fact can be considered in itself as an
indication that this sector is not significantly concerned by the imposition or non-
imposition of anti-dumping measures. This conclusion is reinforced by the findings
established for the co-operating users belonging to other sectors, for which the product
under consideration represents around 1% of their total costs.

2. Conclusion on Community interest

(117)

In the absence of any further new information on Community interest and on the basis
of the facts available, the findings as described in recitals (171) to (179) of the
provisional Regulation are confirmed.

K. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

1. Injury elimination level

(118) For the purpose of establishing the level of measures definitively to be imposed, it is
hereby confirmed that the prices of the dumped imports should be increased to a non-
injurious level. On the basis of the injury margin thus established and of the dumping

20

margins found, whichever is the lower in accordance with Article 9(4) of the Basic
Regulation, the level of duty then established. In the absence of any new information,
the methodology used for establishing the injury margin as described in recital (181)
of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

2. Croatia and Yugoslavia

(119) As the market shares found were de minimis it is proposed not to impose any anti-
dumping duty on imports of malleable fittings originating in Croatia and Yugoslavia
and to terminate the proceeding in respect of imports originating in these countries.

3. Definitive duties

(120)

In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that a definitive anti-dumping duty should
be imposed on the imports originating in the remaining countries concerned.

(121) As regards the residual duty to be applied to the non-co-operating exporting producers,
in those cases where the level of co-operation has been high, the residual duty was
fixed at
the level of the highest anti-dumping duty found for the co-operating
exporting producers. In those cases where the level of co-operation has been low, the
residual duty was fixed at the level of the highest dumping or injury margin found for
a representative range of exported types of the co-operating producing exporters,
whichever was the lower.

(122) On the basis of the above, the proposed definitive duty rates, expressed as a percentage

of the CIF Community border price, customs duty unpaid, are as follows:

COUNTRY

COMPANY

DEFINITIVE DUTY (%)

Brazil

The Czech
Republic
Japan

The Republic
of Korea
Thailand

China

Indústria de Fundição Tupy Ltda
Others
Moravské Zelezárny a.s.
Others
Hitachi Metals Ltd.
Others
Yeong Hwa Metal Co. Ltd.
Others

BIS Pipe Fitting Industry Company Ltd.

Siam Fittings Co. Ltd.
Thai Malleable Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.
Others
All companies

34.8
34.8
26.1
26.1
26.9
33.6
13.4
23.4

22.1

12.4
6.3
22.1
49.4

21

(123) Any claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty
rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of
new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission4 forthwith
with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities
linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with e.g. that name change
or that change in the production and sales entities. The Commission, if appropriate,
will, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, amend the Regulation accordingly
by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.

4. Undertakings

(124)

It will be recalled that the exporting producer in the Czech Republic has offered a
price undertaking in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Basic Regulation. Subsequent
to the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures, also the exporting producer in
Korea and one of the exporting producers in Thailand have offered price undertakings
in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Basic Regulation. The Commission considers
that the undertakings offered can be accepted since they eliminate the injurious effect
of the dumping. Moreover, the regular and detailed reports which the companies
undertook to provide to the Commission will allow an effective monitoring.
the Commission
Furthermore, the sales structure of these exporters is such that
considers that there is little risk of circumventing the undertaking offered.

(125) The Japanese exporting producer also made proposals for offering an undertaking.
However, the level of co-operation of this company throughout the investigation, and
the accuracy and reliability of the data it had provided was poor (cf. recital (21)).
Therefore, the Commission was not, therefore, satisfied that an undertaking from this
company could be effectively monitored. Furthermore, the structure of the company's
export sales' sector, with more than one related importer involved, was considered to
increase the risk of circumvention. The offers were therefore rejected.

(126)

In order to ensure the effective respect and monitoring of the undertakings, when the
request for release for free circulation pursuant to the undertakings is presented,
exemption from the duty is conditional upon presentation to the relevant Member
States' customs’ services of a valid undertaking invoice issued by the exporting
producers from whom the undertakings are accepted and containing the information
listed in the Annex. Where no such invoice is presented or when it does correspond to
the product presented to the customs’ services, the appropriate rate of anti-dumping
duty will be payable in order to avoid circumvention of the undertakings.

(127)

In the event of a breach or withdrawal of the undertakings an anti-dumping duty may
be imposed, pursuant to Articles 8(9) and 10 of the Basic Regulation.

4

European Commission
Directorate-General Trade
Directorate C
DM 24 - 8/38
Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200
B-1049 Brussels / Belgium

22

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of threaded malleable
1.
cast iron tube or pipe fittings, falling within CN code ex 7307 19 10 (TARIC code 7307 19 10
10) and originating in Brazil, the Czech Republic, Japan, the People's Republic of China, the
Republic of Korea and Thailand.

The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community-

2.
frontier price, before duty, shall be as follows for products originating in:

Country

Definitive Duty

TARIC

Brazil

Czech Republic

Japan

People’s Republic of China

Republic of Korea

Thailand

(%)

34.8

26.1

33.6

49.4

23.4

22.1

Additional code

-

A999

A999

-

A999

A999

23

The above rates shall not apply to the products manufactured by the companies listed

3.
below, which shall be subject to the following anti-dumping duty rates:

Country

Company

Japan

Republic

of Korea

Thailand

Hitachi Metals Ltd.
Seavans North
2-1, Shibaura 1 - Chome
Minato-Ku
Tokyo 105-8614
Japan

Yeong Hwa Metal Co Ltd
363-6, Namyang-dong, Chinhae,
Kyongman, Republic of Korea

BIS Pipe Fitting Industry Co Ltd
107 Moo 4, Petchkasem Rd., Omnoi,
Kratumban
Samutsakorn 74130, Thailand

Siam Fittings Co. Ltd.
100/1-100/2, Moo 2, Settakit 1 Road,
Omnoi, Krathumban,
Samutsakorn 74130,
Thailand
Thai Malleable Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.
469/19 Rama III Road, Yannawa,
Bangkok 10120, Thailand

Definitive
Duty
(%)

TARIC
Additional
Code

26.9

A092

13.4

A093

22.1

A094

12.4

A095

6.3

A096

Notwithstanding Article 1(1), the definitive duty shall not apply to imports realised for

4.
free circulation in accordance with the provisions of Article 2.

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

5.
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 mentioned in
paragraph 3, declared under the appropriate TARIC additional code and that the conditions set
in paragraph 2 are met.

2.
When the request for release for free circulation is presented, exemption from the
duties shall be conditional upon presentation to the competent Member State’s customs
services of a valid "Undertaking Invoice" issued by the exporting companies mentioned in
paragraph 3 containing the essential elements listed in the Annex to this Regulation.
Exemption from the duty shall further be conditional on the goods declared and presented to
customs corresponding precisely to the description on the "Undertaking Invoice".

24

Imports accompanied by an "Undertaking Invoice" shall be declared under the

3.
following TARIC additional codes:

Company

Country

TARIC Additional
Code

Czech Republic

Republic of Korea

Thailand

Moravské Zelezárny a.s.
Repcinska 86,
77900 Olomouc 9
Czech Republic

Yeong Hwa Metal Co Ltd
363-6, Namyang-dong, Chinhae,
Kyongman, Korea

BIS Pipe Fitting Industry Co Ltd
107 Moo 4, Petchkasem Rd.,
Omnoi, Kratumban
Samutsakorn 74130, Thailand

A097

A093

A094

Article 3

The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to Regulation (EC)
No 449/2000 on imports of threaded malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings originating in
Brazil, the Czech Republic, Japan, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and
Thailand 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. Where the definitive
duties are higher than the provisional duties, only the amounts secured at the level of the
provisional duties shall be definitively collected.

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

Article 4

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

Done at Brussels, […]

For the Council
The President
[…]

25

Elements to be indicated in the undertaking invoice referred to in Article 2(2):

ANNEX

1.

2.

The TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice may be customs-
cleared at Community borders (as specified in the Regulation),

The exact description of the goods, including:

–

–

–

reporting code number

The product
(as established in the
undertaking offered by the producing exporter in question), including
type number, diameter, and surface.

(PRC)

CN code,

quantity (to be given in units),

3.

The description of the terms of the sale, including:

–

–

–

–

price per unit,

the applicable payment terms,

the applicable delivery terms,

total discounts and rebates.

4.

5.

Name of the unrelated importer to which the invoice is issued directly by the
company.

The name of the official of the company that has issued the undertaking invoice and
the following signed declaration:

“I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export to the European Community of the
goods covered by this invoice is being made within the scope and under the terms of the
undertaking offered by . . . [company], and accepted by the European Commission through
Regulation (EC) No 449/2000 or Decision C(2000)XXX. I declare that the information
provided in this invoice is complete and correct.”

26