Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2000 of 11 August 2000 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: 2000-08-11
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: anti-dumping duty, import, originating product, piping, third country

L 208/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.8.2000

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1784/2000

of 11 August 2000

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 Community (1) and in
particular Articles 9 and 10(2) thereof,

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

Whereas:

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 449/2000 (2),
hereinafter
imposed a
the ‘provisional Regulation’),
provisional anti-dumping duty on imports into the
Community of malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings
originating in Brazil,
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 Yugo-
slavia because their market shares had provisionally been
found to be de minimis.

the Czech Republic,

Japan,

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE

the Czech Republic,

Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and
considerations on the basis of which it was decided to
impose a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports
from Brazil,
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 Yugo-
slavia, 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.

Japan,

The Commission continued to seek and verify all infor-
mation deemed necessary for the definitive findings.

(9)

Further verification visits were carried out at the prem-
ises of the following importers/traders which had replied
to the questionnaire:
— Jannone SA, Spain,
— Nefit BV, The Netherlands,
— Thisa SA, Spain.

All parties were informed of
facts and
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping

the essential

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

(EC) No 905/98 (OJ L 128, 30.04.1998, p. 18).

(2) OJ L 55, 29.2.2000, p. 3.

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 subse-
quent 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 invest-
igation, namely Bulgaria, Poland, Turkey and the United
States of America 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
the United States of America and Turkey, the informa-
tion available indicated de minimis import levels. This
claim should therefore be rejected.

D. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE

PRODUCT

1. Product under consideration

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
hereby
This
confirmed.

ex 7307 19 10.

definition

is

(10)

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
the investigation since the product under
scope of
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.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

18.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 208/9

(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
investigation correctly relate to the product
present
under consideration. If there were to be instances in
which malleable fittings would be imported under other
CN codes, this has to be considered as a misclassifica-
tion, and the attention of customs officials will be duly
drawn to this issue.

fall within the definition of

(12) With regard to the second point, unthreaded fittings do
the product under
not
consideration. In fact, they are an intermediate product
necessitating further manufacturing steps which give the
product under consideration one of its essential charac-
teristics, i.e. its joining mechanism. As a consequence,
unthreaded fittings as such are not in competition with
the product under consideration and are not
inter-
changeable with it. Moreover, the investigation showed
that the threading 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.

(13) Given the above, the provisional findings as regards the

product under consideration are hereby confirmed.

2. Like product

(14)

(15)

In recital 13, of the provisional Regulation, the Commis-
sion 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.

the provisional

Following the disclosure of
findings,
certain interestered 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.

(16)

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 1 100°. 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 decarburised, 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, resistent and easier to galvanise than black heart
fittings, which,
in turn, are easier to thread and are
somewhat more suitable for applications in which pres-
sure tightness is of importance.

that

(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
the importers/traders which purchase both
countries
fittings
black heart malleable
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 considera-
tion, the investigation has confirmed that they do not
differentiate between white heart or black heart fittings
to any significant degree.

from the

(18)

This is also suggested by the fact that both white heart
and black heart fitings 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 Yugo-
slavia, it is confirmed that the volume of imports origin-
ating in those countries represented 0,4 % and 0,3 % of
the total Community consumption,
respectively. As
import volumes were considered negligible in accord-
ance 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 (hereinafter the ‘basic Regula-
tion’), the proceeding should be terminated with the
respect to imports originating in these two countries.

L 208/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.8.2000

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)

(24)

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 Regu-
lation) 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 consid-
ered appropriate and necessary in order to avoid giving
a bonus for non-cooperation, thus ensuring a fair treat-
ment vis-à-vis all other parties, which had fully cooper-
ated in the proceeding.

1.1.2. Normal value based on domestic sales

The Brazilian exporting producer claimed that Article
the basic Regulation places the Commission
2(2) of
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 average profit margin of such sales was
reasonably high, the prices of such sales were repres-
entative and should have been used to establish the
normal value.

(25)

It is the consistent practise of the Community institu-
tions 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
the
are equal

to or exceed the 5 % threshold will

that

the sales are sufficiently
Commission consider
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.

stated that

the
The Brazilian exporting producer
Commission used different and inconsistent methodolo-
gies in order to establish the percentage of financing
expenses and of other selling, general and administrative
costs (S&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
the figures
show the correctness and reliability of
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

had

considered

The Czech exporting producer contested the fact that
the Commission
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.

(26)

(27)

(28)

(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 char-
acteristics 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 estab-
lished that
the related sales company was booking
expenses in its accounting records that were in fact
linked to the activity of the producing company. The
approach taken at
the provisional stage is therefore
confirmed.

18.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 208/11

1.1.3. Constructed normal value

(34)

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.

(35)

(36)

(37)

(30)

(31)

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 rela-
tion 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 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
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 provi-
sionally established are therefore confirmed.

trade,

the relevant

selling expenses

In fact,
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 signifi-
cant 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

(32)

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

(38)

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

(33)

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.

(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.

L 208/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.8.2000

1.3. Comparison

sion to investigate it. Consequently,
rejected and provisional findings are confirmed.

the claim was

(40)

(41)

(42)

(43)

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-the-spot verifi-
cation showed that product types with different charac-
teristics 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 Basic
Regulation, the internal product categorisation of the
company was used. This led to a comparison of normal
values and export prices of identical product types.

(a) P h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

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

identical product

It should be noted that where the Community Institu-
tions compared domestic normal valu and export prices
of
types, no further allowance for
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
the normal value was
trade,
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

objected

producer

exporting

the
Community Institutions' decision to reject a level of
trade adjustment
the provisional
(see recital 105 of
Regulation). It claimed that price differences existed for
certain product types depending on their physical char-
acteristics.

to

(b) I m p o r t c h a r g e s a n d i n d i r e c t

t a x e s

( ‘ d u t y

d r a w b a c k ’ )

(46) As announced in recital 47 of the provisional Regula-
tion, 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 exam-
ination 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 amount claimed. The allowance provisionally
granted was therefore revised accordingly.

(47)

(48)

(49)

(50)

(c) L e v e l o f

t r a d e

The Brazilian and the Czech exporting producer reit-
erated 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.

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) C r e d i t c o s t s

The
it
cooperating Korean company alleged that
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 ques-
tionnaire. Consequently the claim was rejected.

(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
to the
exporter clearly indicated that it was essential for a claim
to be made accurately and in time to allow the Commis-

the questionnaire sent

(e) C u r r e n c y c o n v e r s i o n s

(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 material impact on the dumping
calculations, this argument was accepted and exception-
ally daily rates were used for the definitive dumping
calculations.

18.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 208/13

(53)

(54)

the
The same exporting producer also claimed that
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 safe. However, the exchange rate at the date of
payment cannot be used. Consequently the claim had to
be rejected.

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 treat-
ment made by one of the Chinese producers.

(56) During the investigation period 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,
in particular
regarding sales from the trader to customers in the
Community since the trader did not cooperate.

(57) Another Chinese producer claimed to be fully indepen-
dent 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
charged to the
Community customer by the trader. This State interfer-
ence was sufficient to introduce a risk of possible future
the countrywide duty should this
circumvention of
company receive its own individual duty rate. Conse-
quently, the claim could not be accepted.

the price

(59)

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

to certain laws on foreign investment

treatment was that

receiving individual

(60)

(61)

(62)

(63)

The company was specifically set up in order to obtain
an income tax benefit. This tax benefit was only avail-
able 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 indi-
vidual treatment. It is also pointed out that, as far as the
alleged discrimination is concerned, no company in
similar circumstances received individual treatment.

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
the countrywide duty is removed.
circumvention of
treatment are therefore
Their requests for individual
rejected.

3. Dumping margin for companies investigated

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

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

expressed as

3.1. Brazil

Indústria de Fundiáo 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 %.

L 208/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.8.2000

Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

(71)

(64)

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

(65)

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
certain
Community producers imported malleable fittings from
third countries, namely Bulgaria and
certain other
Turkey, and that therefore, likewise, they should not be
considered as forming part of the Community industry.

interestered parties

that

(66) As to the first point, the Commission further investi-
gated 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-produced sales of the Community produ-
cers concerned, thus not affecting their status as produ-
cers 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 informa-
tion, 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

(75)

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)

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 coun-
tries 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 injury invest-
igation period, 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
the
they were likewise found to be
Brazilian imports,
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 simi-
larly 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-cumu-
lative assessment.

the prices of

regards

(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
countries
consideration from both various
concerned and the Community producers.

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

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 coun-
tries concerned.

1.1.2. The Czech Republic

(76)

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.

18.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 208/15

(77)

the rest of

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 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), with in the rest of
the Community the malleable fittings generally have
taper external
threads
threads and parallel
(taper/parallel fittings). It was claimed that the Korean
imports, which were only made to the United Kingdom
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 United Kingdom
market was supplied by taper/parallel threaded fittings.
if at all,
As a consequence,
only be assessed on a regional basis.

injurious dumping could,

internal

(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 United Kingdom market. The
investigation showed moreover that, in particular in the
IP, significant quantities of taper/parallel fittings have
been sold in the United Kingdom market, representing a
share of the local consumption of the product under
consideration well above 20 %, which cannot be consid-
ered negligible.

(81) On this basis, the appropriateness of the cumulative
assessment of the imports from Korea with those origin-
ating in the other countries concerned is confirmed.

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.
countries
comprising all
concerned and from the other third countries.

imports both from the

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 legisla-
tion. Secondly, during the IP, the Thai imports consti-
tuted more than 3 % of the overall
imports into the
Community,
thus being clearly above the WTO de
minimis threshold.

(84) As to the import trends observed over the IIP and as
shown above, the development of Thai imports was not
different to the trends observed for the other countries
justifying them not to be cumulated with
concerned,
these other countries. Therefore, having in addition
regard to the findings on the dumping which is consid-
erable, and the channels of distribution used, the appro-
priateness of the cumulative assessment of the imports
from Thailand with those originating in the other coun-
tries 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 condi-
tions 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
the investigation
found to be comparable.
showed that,
in all cases, the imported products and
those of the Community industry have the same phys-
ical and technical characteristics, that the pricing trends
are similar, significantly undercutting the 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.

Indeed,

L 208/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.8.2000

1.2. Price undercutting

(86)

(87)

1.2.1. Adjustments for black and white heart fittings

(black heart

Some interested parties claimed that adjustments should
be made in the price comparison between imported
products
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
since white heart malleable
the annealing process,
fittings commanded a higher cost of production because
of the increased energy consumption than black heart
malleable fittings), which was reflected in the selling
prices.

a) M a r k e t p e r c e p t i o n

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, no such distinction was
actually observed, in any event not in terms of pricing
differences. As to the users of the product under consid-
eration, 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.

b) C o s t o f p r o d u c t i o n a n d s e l l i n g p r i c e

(88) Moreover, as concerns alleged differences in the cost of
production and any effects on the selling prices, the data
available allowed the detailed verification of the manu-
facturing colt 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. More-

over, 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. It was consequently
claimed that the price comparison should be undertaken
on the basis of three different market segments (high,
medium,
in which different Community and
exporting producers were present.

low)

the market

(92) Although no elements were provided allowing any
in three
objective and clean division of
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
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 in order to correspond-
ingly categorise the Community industry and exporting
producers. Therefore, the methodology applied at the
provisional stage is confirmed.

1.2.3. Conclusion on price undercutting

(94)

the

Before
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 %.
the
With respect
provisional weighted
undercutting
average
expressed as a percentage of the Community industry's
prices are confirmed.

to the other countries concerned,

price

18.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 208/17

2. Situation of the Community industry

set in recital 160 of the provisional Regulation, are
confirmed.

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)

(97)

(98)

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,
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 there-
fore rejected.

in the specific case, all

2.2. Analysis of trends

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 appro-
priate, 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
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

I. CAUSATION

1. Impact of the imports concerned

(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
the production and the production
evolution of
capacity, as well as the decrease of the employment and
the lack of profitability were caused by factors other
than the dumped imports, namely,
in particular, the
Community industry's decision to rationalise production
and the necessity to comply with the European environ-
mental standards. Moreover one interested party ques-
tioned the provisional finding concerning the closure of
the manufacturing plant of malleable fittings located in
Germany, claiming that
the producers facilities had
actually been relocated to Austria and, as consequence,
this element could not be considered as a sign of the
injury suffered by the Community industry.

(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 underlining the injury established. As
regards the current proceeding, the investigation estab-
lished that the Community industry underlook restruc-
turing efforts in 1995, with the effect of and as
evidenced by the decrease of production and employ-
ment, 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
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 %.

(profitability

improved

results

by

L 208/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.8.2000

(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 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 were 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 find-
ings of the Commission on the effect on the situation of
the Community industry of
the product
under consideration from other third countries, namely
Turkey, Bulgaria and Poland.

imports of

(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
from the countries
the imports
concerned.

2.1. Turkey

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

(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
link between the dumping and the injury
the causal
found.

3. Substitution effect

(112) Some interested parties questioned the provisional find-
ings as regards the substitution of fittings made of mate-
rials such as copper and plastic for those made of malle-
able 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
in particular for those uses
fittings remained stable,
where physical durability, resistance as well as a specific
tensile strength and elongation are required. Therefore,
any substitution effect cannot have significantly contrib-
uted to the injury suffered by the Community industry
as evidenced by the relatively stable consumption estab-
lished in the course of the present investigation.

(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.

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.

18.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 208/19

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 conclu-
sion is reinforced by the findings established for the cooperating 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 provisional Regulation are
confirmed.

the findings as described in recitals 171 to 179 of

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 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 noncooperating exporting producers, in those cases
where the level of cooperation has been high, the residual duty was fixed at the level of the highest
anti-dumping duty found for the cooperating exporting producers. In those cases where the level of
cooperation 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 cooperating 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

Brazil

Indústria de Fundição Tupy Ltda

Others

Czech Republic

Moravské Zelezárny a.s.

Others

Definitive duty
(%)

34,8

34,8

26,1

26,1

L 208/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.8.2000

Country

Company

Definitive duty
(%)

Japan

Hitachi Metals Ltd

Others

Republic of Korea

Yeong Hwa Metal Co. Ltd

Others

Thailand

BIS Pipe Fitting Industry Company Ltd

Siam Fittings Co. Ltd

Thai Malleable Iron & Steel Co. Ltd

Others

China

All companies

26,9

33,6

13,4

23,4

22,1

12,4

6,3

22,1

49,4

(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 Commission (1), 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 Regula-
tion 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. Furthermore, the sales
structure of these exporters is such that the Commission 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 cooperation of this company throughout the investigation, and the accuracy and reliability of
the data it had provided was poor (See 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.

(1) European Commission

Directorate-General for Trade
Directorate C
DM 24 8/38
Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200
B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel.

18.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 208/21

(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 under-
taking 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,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of threaded malleable 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-frontier price,

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

Country

Definitive duty
(%)

TARIC additional code

Brazil

Czech Republic

Japan

People's Republic of China

Repubic of Korea

Thailand

34,8

26,1

33,6

49,4

23,4

22,1

—

A999

A999

—

A999

A999

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

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

Country

Company

Japan

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

Definitive duty
(%)

TARIC
additional code

26,9

A092

Republic of
Korea

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

13,4

A093

L 208/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.8.2000

Country

Company

Thailand

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

22,1

A094

12,4

A095

6,3

A096

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

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

5.

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 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’.

Imports accompanied by an ‘undertaking invoice’ shall be declared under the following TARIC

3.
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

Article 3

A097

A093

A094

The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 449/2000
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.

18.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 208/23

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, 11 August 2000.

For the Council

The President

H. VÉDRINE

ANNEX

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

1. The Taric additional code under which the goods on the invoice may be customs-cleared at Community borders (as

specified in the Regulation),

2. The exact description of the goods,

including:

— the product reporting code number (PRC) (as established in the undertaking offered by the producing exporter in

question),

including type number, diameter, and surface,

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

5. 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.’