Commission Regulation (EC) No 540/2002 of 26 March 2002 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain welded tubes and pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel originating in the Czech Republic, Poland, Thailand, Turkey and the Ukraine
Date: 2002-03-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Czechia, Poland, Thailand, Türkiye, Ukraine, anti-dumping duty, import, piping, tube

27.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 83/3

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 540/2002

of 26 March 2002

imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain welded tubes and pipes, of iron or
non-alloy steel originating in the Czech Republic, Poland, Thailand, Turkey and the Ukraine

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

within the above time limit and showed that there were
particular
reasons why they should be heard were
granted the opportunity to be heard.

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), as last
amended by Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000 (2), and in partic-
ular Article 7 thereof,

(5)

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

A. PROCEDURE

On 29 June 2001 the Commission announced by a
notice (‘notice of
initiation’) published in the Official
Journal of the European Communities (3), the initiation of an
anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into
the Community of certain welded tubes and pipes, of
iron or non-alloy steel originating in the Czech Republic,
Poland, Thailand, Turkey and the Ukraine.

The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint
lodged in May 2001 by the Defense Committee of the
Welded Steel Tube Industry of the European Union (‘the
complainant’), on behalf of producers representing a
major proportion of
the Community production of
certain welded tubes and pipes, of iron or non-alloy
steel. The complaint contained evidence of dumping of
the said product and of material injury resulting there-
from, which was considered sufficient
to justify the
initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding.

The Commission officially advised the exporting produ-
cers and importers/traders known to be concerned as
the
well as their associations,
the
exporting countries concerned, users,
other
producers
complainant
Community producers, of
the
the
proceeding.
Interested parties were given the oppor-
tunity to make their views known in writing and to
request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice
of initiation.

the representatives of
suppliers,
and

initiation of

Community

A number of exporting producers in the countries
concerned,
producers,
as
Community users and importers/traders made their
views known in writing. All parties who so requested

Community

as well

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2.
(3) OJ C 183, 29.6.2001, p. 3.

In view of the large number of importers and exporting
producers in the exporting countries concerned, and in
conformity with Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 384/
96 (the ‘basic Regulation’), it was considered appropriate
to examine whether sampling should be used. In order
to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling
would indeed be necessary and, if so, to select a sample,
importers and exporting producers were requested,
pursuant to Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, to
make themselves known within two weeks of the initia-
tion of the proceeding and to provide information on
their imports and resale in the Community (importers)
or
to the
Community (exporting producers) during the invest-
igation period (see recital 11) as well as the names and
the activities of all related companies.

turnover and exports

their production,

(6)

(7)

(8)

Seven importers agreed to be included in the sample and
provided the requested information within the deadline.
Five of them were chosen for the sample on the basis of
largest representative volume of imports which could be
reasonably investigated within the time available. Two of
the five companies did not provide the information
requested in the questionnaire for importers and were
therefore considered as non-cooperating according to
Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

In view of the number of exporting producers concerned
sampling had only to be applied for Turkey. Thirteen
exporting producers agreed to be included in the sample
and provided the requested information within the dead-
line. Six of them (of which four were related two by
two) were chosen for the sample on the basis of largest
representative volume of exports which could be reason-
ably investigated within the time available.

In order to allow exporting producers in the Ukraine to
submit a claim for market economy treatment (‘MET’) or
individual treatment if they so wished, the Commission
sent to all Ukrainian companies known to be concerned
a market economy status and an individual treatment
claim form. The Commission also sent questionnaires to
all Community producers, all exporters/producers, all
importers as well as all users and suppliers known to be
concerned as well as to all the parties which made
themselves known within the deadlines set out in the
notice of initiation.

L 83/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.3.2002

(9)

Replies were received from nine of the complainant
Community producers, 11 exporting producers in the
countries concerned as well as from two importers in
the Community which were not related to exporting
producers. The Commission also received replies from
another Community producer and from four suppliers.
Finally, the Commission received one claim form for
MET/individual treatment from an Ukrainian producing
exporter of the product concerned.

(10)

The Commission sought and verified all the information
it deemed necessary for the purpose of a determination
of dumping, injury and Community interest. Verification
visits were carried out at the premises of the following
companies:

(a) Community producers

— Tubeurop France SA, Lexy, France,

— Arvedi Tubi Acciaio srl, Cremona, Italy,

— Dalmine SpA, Dalmine, Italy,

— Tuberie de Differdange SA, Differdange, Luxem-

bourg,

— Corus Tubes BV, Oosterhout, the Netherlands,

— Aceralia Perfiles Madrid sl, Madrid, Spain,

— Aceralia Transformados SA, Vera de Bidassoa,

Spain,

— Caparo Steel Products Ltd, Tredegar, United

Kingdom,

— Corus UK Ltd, Corby, United Kingdom;

(12)

(b) Suppliers in the Community

— Usinor, Paris, France;

(c) Exporting producers in the Czech Republic

— Jäkl Karvina as, Karvina-Hranice,

— Zelezárny Veseli as, Veseli nad Moravou;

(d) Exporting producer in Poland

— Huta Buczek SA, Sosnowiec;

(e) Exporting producers in Turkey

— Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi AS, Ankara,

— Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari AS,

Istanbul

(related to Mannesmann Boru Endustrisi AS),

— Mannesmann Boru Endustrisi AS,

Istanbul
(related to Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari AS),

— Cayirova Boru San Ve Tic AS, Istanbul (related to

Yücel Boru Profil Endüstrisi AS),

— Yücel Boru Profil Endüstrisi AS, Istanbul (related

to Cayirova Boru San Ve Tic AS),

— Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret AS,

Kayseri;

(f) Exporting producer in the Ukraine

— OJSC Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant,

Dnipropetrovsk;

(g) Analogue country

E x p o r t i n g p r o d u c e r s i n T u r k e y

— Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi AS, Ankara,

— Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari AS,

Istanbul

(related to Mannesmann Boru Endustrisi AS),

— Mannesmann Boru Endustrisi AS,

Istanbul
(related to Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari AS),

— Cayirova Boru San Ve Tic AS, Istanbul (related to

Yücel Boru Profil Endüstrisi AS),

— Yücel Boru Profil Endüstrisi AS, Istanbul (related

to Cayirova Boru San Ve Tic AS),

— Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret AS,

Kayseri.

(11)

The investigation of dumping and injury covered the
period from 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001 (‘the invest-
igation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of trends rele-
vant for the assessment of injury covered the period
from 1 January 1997 to the end of the IP (‘period
considered’).

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

1. Product concerned

circular

The product concerned is welded tubes and pipes, of
cross-section,
iron or non-alloy steel, of
threaded or threadable (gas pipes) and certain other
welded tubes and pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel, of
circular cross-section, of an external diameter not
exceeding 168,3 mm. It is currently classifiable within
the CN codes 7306 30 51, 7306 30 59, ex 7306 30 71
and ex 7306 30 78.

(13) Welded tubes and pipes are used in a wide range of
applications including, amongst others, the conveyance
of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and
gases in plumbing heating and ventilation systems, air-
conditioner units, automatic sprinkler
systems, and
other similar uses. Quite often they are also used for
construction purposes, for load-bearing, fence tubing or
as protection means.

(14)

The major raw material for the product concerned are
hot-rolled coils (HRC), which are formed into tubes.
Welded tubes and pipes may then further be treated by
coating or galvanisation. These further treatments are
intended to increase the quality of the product. They are
mostly delivered with plain ends, but also can have
bevelled or threaded ends, with or without couplings.
The product concerned is produced in numerous sizes
and according to various national standards and classifi-
cations. It is to a considerable extent interchangeable
with regard to their end-use and, therefore, there exists a
significant degree of overlap and competition between
the various types of the product concerned. It is there-
fore concluded, as has been done in previous investiga-
tions covering the same product, that all types of the
product concerned should be considered as a single
product for the purpose of this investigation.

27.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 83/5

2. Like product

(15)

It is provisionally determined that the product produced
in the Czech Republic, Poland, Thailand and Turkey and
exported to the Community is alike in all aspects to the
product sold on the domestic markets of these countries
as well as to the product produced by the Community
producers and sold on the Community market. The
same is true with regard to the product produced and
sold for export to the Community as compared to the
product produced and sold in Turkey which served as a
market economy third country for the Ukraine. All these
products were therefore considered to be alike within
the meaning of Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No
384/96.

C. DUMPING

A. MARKET ECONOMY COUNTRIES

1. General methodology

(16)

The general methodology set out hereinafter has been
applied for all exporting market economy countries
concerned. The presentation of the findings on dumping
the countries concerned therefore only
for each of
describes what is specific for each exporting country.

Normal value

(17) As

far as

the determination of normal value

is
concerned, the Commission first established, for each
exporting producer, whether its total domestic sales of
the product concerned were representative in compar-
ison with its total export sales to the Community. In
accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation,
domestic sales were considered representative when the
total domestic sales volume of each exporting producer
was at least 5 % of its total export sales volume to the
Community.

(18)

(19)

The Commission subsequently identified those types of
tubes, sold domestically by the companies having repres-
entative domestic sales, that were identical or directly
comparable to the types
to the
Community.

sold for export

For each type sold by the exporting producers on their
domestic markets and found to be directly comparable
to the type of tube sold for export to the Community, it
was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently
representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the
basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular type of
tube were considered sufficiently representative when
the total domestic sales volume of that type during the
IP represented 5 % or more of the total sales volume of
the comparable tube type exported to the Community.

(20) An examination was also made as to whether the
domestic sales of each tube type could be regarded as
having been made in the ordinary course of trade, by
establishing the proportion of profitable sales to inde-
pendent customers of the tube type in question. In cases

where the sales volume of tubes, sold at a net sales price
equal to or above the calculated cost of production,
represented 80 % or more of the total sales volume and
where the weighted average price of that type was equal
to or above the cost of production, normal value was
based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a
weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales made
during the IP, irrespective of whether these sales were
profitable or not. In cases where the volume of profit-
able sales of tubes represented less than 80 % of the total
sales volume or where the weighted average price of that
type was below the cost of production, normal value
was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a
weighted average of profitable sales only, provided that
these sales represented 10 % or more of the total sales
volume.

(21)

In cases where the volume of profitable sales of any type
of tube represented less than 10 % of the total sales
volume, it was considered that this particular type was
sold in insufficient quantities for the domestic price to
provide an appropriate basis for the establishment of the
normal value.

(22) Wherever domestic prices of a particular type of tube
sold by an exporting producer could not be used in
order to establish normal value, another method had to
In this regard, the Commission used the
be applied.
prices of
the product concerned charged on the
domestic market by another producer. In all cases where
this was not possible, and in absence of any other
reasonable method, constructed normal value was used.

(23)

In all cases where constructed normal value was used
and in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regula-
tion, normal value was constructed by adding to the
the exported types, adjusted
manufacturing costs of
where necessary, a reasonable percentage for selling,
general and administrative expenses (‘SG & A’) and a
reasonable margin of profit. To this end, the Commis-
sion examined whether the SG & A incurred and the
the producing exporters
profit
concerned on the domestic market constituted reliable
data.

realised by each of

(24) Actual domestic SG & A expenses were considered reli-
able where the domestic sales volume of the company
concerned could be regarded as representative. The
domestic profit margin was determined on the basis of
domestic sales made in the ordinary course of trade. In
all cases where these conditions were not met
the
Commission used the SG & A expenses and profit of
other producers in the domestic market of the exporting
country according to Article 2(6)(a) of the basic Regula-
tion. In cases where this was not possible or appropriate,
the amount applicable for the same general category of
products was taken as a basis for the construction of the
normal value in accordance with Article 2(6)(b) of the
basic Regulation.

L 83/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.3.2002

Export price

Normal value

(25)

In all cases the product concerned was exported to
independent customers in the Community, and the
export price was therefore established in accordance
with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, namely on the
basis of export prices actually paid or payable.

Comparison

(26)

For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between
the normal value and the export price, due allowance in
the form of adjustments was made for differences
affecting price comparability in accordance with Article
2(10) of the basic Regulation. Appropriate adjustments
were granted in all cases where they were found to be
reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence.

Dumping margin

(27) According to Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, for
each exporting producer the weighted average normal
value was compared with the weighted average export
price. However, in cases where there was a pattern of
significant price variations between regions, customers
or time periods, and where the method comparing
weighted average normal value with weighted average
export price did not reflect the full degree of dumping,
the weighted average normal value was compared to the
individual export transactions.

(28)

(29)

(30)

For non-cooperating companies, a ‘residual’ dumping
margin was determined in accordance with Article 18 of
the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.

For those countries with a level of cooperation close to
the information provided by Eurostat, i.e. where there
was no reason to believe that any exporting producer
abstained from cooperating, it was decided to set the
residual dumping margin at the level of the cooperating
company with the highest dumping margin in order to
ensure the effectiveness of any measures.

For those countries where the level of cooperation was
low, the residual dumping margin was determined on
the basis of the highest dumped export sales to the
Community of representative quantities. This approach
was also considered necessary in order to avoid giving a
bonus for non-cooperation and in view of the fact that
there were no indications that a non-cooperating party
had dumped at a lower level.

(32) Normal value was established on the basis of domestic
sales for those types of the product concerned which
were directly comparable to the types of tubes exported
to the Community. Only in those cases where there were
no sales of comparable types of tubes on the domestic
market, was normal value constructed in accordance
with Article 2(6) of
the basic Regulation. For that
purpose, for both cooperating exporting producers' own
cost of production and the companies' own SG & A
expenses and profits were used.

Export price

(33)

The procedures and methodologies followed by the
Commission to assess the export price of products
originating in the Czech Republic were the same as
i.e. export sales made
those explained in recital 25,
directly to an independent customer in the Community
were established pursuant to Article 2(8) of the basic
Regulation.

Comparison

(34) Adjustments were made for transport, ancillary costs
(bank charges), insurance and credit costs, for differences
in physical characteristics and in level of trade.

Dumping margin

(35)

The comparison between the normal value and the
export price on a weighted to weighted average basis
showed the existence of dumping in respect of both
exporting producers. The provisional
cooperating
dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the cif
import price at the Community border are:

— Jäkl Karvina, Karvina-Hranice
— Zelezárny Veseli as, Veseli nad Moravou

28,9 %,
65,3 %.

(36)

The level of cooperation for the Czech Republic was
high. The residual provisional dumping margin was
therefore set at the same level as for the highest margin
level established for a cooperating company, i.e. 65,3 %.

3. Poland

(37) One exporting producer

in Poland replied to the

questionnaire.

Normal value

2. Czech Republic

(31)

Two exporting producers in the Czech Republic replied
to the questionnaire. These replies included data on
domestic sales made by related domestic sales compa-
nies.

(38)

The exporting producer's domestic sales of the product
concerned were not made in the ordinary course of
trade during the investigation period, and domestic
prices could therefore not serve as a basis for normal
value. Given the fact that there were no other Polish
producers cooperating in this
investigation, normal
value could also not be based on prices of other sellers
or producers.

27.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 83/7

(39)

Consequently, normal value was constructed by using
the company's own cost of production and SG & A
expenses, plus a profit margin for the same general
category of products, in accordance with Article 2(6)(b)
of the basic Regulation.

Export price

(40)

The procedures and methodologies followed by the
Commission to assess the export price of products
originating in Poland were the same as those explained
in recital 25, i.e. export sales made directly to an inde-
pendent customer in the Community were established
pursuant to Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

Comparison

(45)

(46)

Normal value

To establish normal value data on domestic sales in
Thailand, the information received in the above ques-
tionnaire reply was used as this information was also in
line with the data submitted in the complaint and, as no
other data or cooperation were available with regard to
Thailand,
this was the most reasonable information
available in this case.

Export price

The export volume covered by the information received
during the investigation (see recital 44) represented only
a part of the import volume originating in Thailand
during the IP. Also the price level claimed in that infor-
mation differed substantially from the price
level
according to Eurostat for the product concerned and
originating in Thailand. It was therefore considered that
provisionally the most reasonable basis to establish the
export price was data as available in Eurostat.

(41) No adjustments were claimed and found to be necessary
for a fair comparison between normal value and export
price since both were established on an ex-works basis.

Comparison

Dumping margin

(42)

(43)

The comparison between the normal value and the
export price on a weighted to weighted average basis
showed the existence of dumping for the cooperating
exporting producer. The provisional dumping margin
expressed as a percentage of the cif import price at the
Community border is:

— Huta Buczek, Sosnowiec

17,4 %.

The exporting producer covered an extremely small
the product
all Polish exports of
proportion of
concerned to the Community. Indeed, the volume of
exports covered by the cooperating producer repre-
sented only 0,3 % of the import data recorded in Euro-
stat during the IP. The provisional residual dumping
margin for Poland was therefore determined in accord-
ance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the
basis of the facts available. A comparison between the
normal value as established for the cooperating Polish
exporting producer and the export price as recorded
under Eurostat showed a provisional residual dumping
margin of 52,6 %, at cif Community frontier level.

4. Thailand

(44) One exporting producer in Thailand replied to the ques-
tionnaire but subsequently declined to cooperate in this
investigation, and in particular refused a verification of
the information submitted in his reply. The Commission
consequently had no option but to apply Article 18 of
the basic Regulation and to make use of the facts avail-
able.

(47) Adjustments were made for transport, handling, and
charging of the product concerned, where appropriate.

Dumping margin

(48) A comparison between the normal value and the export
price as established under recitals 44 and 46 on a
weighted to weighted average basis showed the existence
of dumping of imports from Thailand. The provisional
dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the cif
import price at the Community border is 37,6 %.

5. Turkey

(49) As explained in recitals 5 and 7, and given the large
number of exporting producers concerned in Turkey,
sampling was applied. The companies selected in the
sample are:
— Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi AS, Ankara,
— Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari AS, Istanbul,
— Mannesmann Boru Endustrisi AS, Istanbul,
— Cayirova Boru San Ve Tic AS, Istanbul,
— Yücel Boru Profil Endüstrisi AS, Istanbul,
— Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret AS, Kayseri.

The following companies were not selected but agreed
to cooperate:
— Borutas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret AS, Adapazari,
— Cinar Boru Profil San. Tic. Ltd STI, Eregli,
— Guven Boru ve Profil Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd, Istanbul,
— Özdemir Boru Profil San.ve Ticaret AS, Eregli,
— Sevil Boru-Profil Sanayii ve Ticaret AS, Istanbul,
— Toscelik Profil ve Sac. Endüstrisi AS, Iskenderun,
— Özborsan Boru San.ve Ticaret AS, Istanbul.

L 83/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.3.2002

Normal value

(50) Given the significant inflation in Turkey as well as the
devaluation of the Turkish lira in February 2001, the
Commission established normal value on a monthly
basis for those types of the product concerned which
were directly comparable to the types of tubes exported
to the Community. Only in those cases where there were
no sales or no representative sales of comparable types
of tubes on the domestic market or where monthly
domestic sales were not made in the ordinary course of
trade, normal values were constructed in accordance
with Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation. For all cooper-
ating exporting producers, their own cost of manufac-
turing plus the companies' own SG & A expenses and
profits were used.

Export price

(51)

The export price of products originating in Turkey is
based on export sales made directly to independent
customers in the Community and is thus established
pursuant to Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

Comparison

(52) Adjustments were made for rebates, discounts, transport,
handling, charging, discharging costs, ancillary costs
(bank charges), insurance and credit costs where appro-
priate.

Dumping margin

(53) According to Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, for
each exporting producer the monthly weighted average
normal value was compared to the monthly weighted
average export price. However, with regard to five of the
six exporting producers, there was a pattern of export
prices which differed significantly between the time
periods when these exports were made. Therefore, and
since a comparison between a weighted average normal
value and a weighted average export price or by
comparison of individual normal values to individual
export prices would not
the full degree of
dumping exercised, the weighted average normal value
was compared to the individual export transactions. No
such pattern was
found with regard to the sixth
exporting producer. Therefore, the dumping margin of
the latter company was established on a comparison
between a weighted average normal value with a
weighted average export price.

reflect

replied to the questionnaire. These replies included data
on domestic sales made through related domestic sales
companies.

(56)

The provisional dumping margins
expressed as a
percentage of the cif import price at the Community
border are:

— Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi AS, Ankara

— Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari AS,
Istanbul and Mannesmann Boru Endus-
trisi AS, Istanbul

— Cayirova Boru San Ve Tic AS, Istanbul
and Yücel Boru Profil Endüstrisi AS,
Istanbul

0 %

9,8 %

4,2 %

— Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret

12,7 %

AS, Kayseri

(57)

(58)

(b) O t h e r c o o p e r a t i n g p r o d u c e r s n o t i n c l u d e d

i n t h e s a m p l e

In order to establish the dumping margin to be applied
to the cooperating Turkish producers not included in the
sample, the Commission calculated a weighted average
dumping margin for the producers in the sample, as
stipulated in Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation.

This exercise led to a weighted average dumping margin
of 8,0 % for the following companies:
— Borutas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret AS, Adapazari,
— Cinar Boru Profil San. Tic. Ltd STI, Eregli,
— Guven Boru ve Profil Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd, Istanbul,
— Özdemir Boru Profil San. Ve Ticaret AS, Eregli,
— Sevil Boru-Profil Sanayii ve Ticaret AS, Istanbul,
— Toscelik Profil ve Sac. Endüstrisi AS, Iskenderun,
— Özborsan Boru San.ve Ticaret AS, Istanbul.

(c) N o n - c o o p e r a t i n g c o m p a n i e s

(59)

The level of cooperation for Turkey was high and the
residual provisional dumping margin was set at the same
level as for the highest margin level of a cooperating
company,

i.e. 12,7 %.

(54)

(55)

(a) C o o p e r a t i n g p r o d u c e r s i n t h e s a m p l e

It is the Commission's standard practice to establish one
dumping margin for related exporting producers,
in
order to preclude the possibility that future exports to
the Community might be channelled through the
companies having the lower margin.

(60)

Six exporting producers in Turkey chosen for
the
sample, of which four were related i.e. Borusan Birlesik
Boru Fabrikalari AS, Istanbul is related to Mannesmann
Boru Endustrisi AS and Cayirova Boru San Ve Tic AS,
Istanbul is related to Yücel Boru Profil Endüstrisi A.S.,

B. ECONOMY IN TRANSITION: UKRAINE

1. Market economy treatment

Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in
anti-dumping investigations concerning imports from
countries in transition like the Ukraine, normal value
shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to
6 of
the said Article for those exporting producers
which were found to meet the criteria laid down in
Article 2(7)(c),
that market economy conditions
prevail
in respect of the manufacture and sale of the
product concerned.

i.e.

27.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 83/9

(61) One exporting producer in the Ukraine requested MET
pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, or
individual treatment should the investigation establish
that they did not meet all of the conditions for MET, and
replied to the MET claim form for exporting producers.

(62)

(63)

(64)

(65)

(66)

(67)

(68)

The Commission sought all information deemed neces-
sary and verified all information submitted in the MET
application at the premises of the company in question.

It was found that
the company's business decisions
relating to costs and prices were not made in response
to market signals reflecting supply and demand and
were not without significant State interference. The
production costs and financial situation of the company
was also subject to significant distortions carried over
from the former non-market-economy system. In addi-
tion, it could not be said that the company had one clear
set of basic accounting records which were indepen-
dently audited and applied for all purposes. Conse-
quently, it was concluded that the company did not fulfil
the conditions set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic
Regulation.

The company concerned and the complainant were
given an opportunity to comment on the above
findings.

contested the
The Ukrainian exporting producer
regarding State
Commission's findings,
in particular
the financial situation.
interference and distortion of
However, no new arguments were brought forward to
alter the MET determination.

It was therefore decided to reject the MET claim for the
Ukrainian
Advisory
Committee was consulted and did not object to the
Commission's conclusions.

concerned.

company

The

2. Individual treatment

In accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation,
it
is the institutions consistent policy to calculate a
country-wide duty for countries falling under Article
2(7), except in those cases where companies are able to
demonstrate that their export prices and quantities as
well as the conditions and terms of the sales are freely
determined, exchange rates are carried out at market
rate, and that any State interference is not such as to
permit circumvention of measures if exporters are given
different rates of duty. This would justify a departure
from the determination of a single country-wide duty.

The same Ukrainian exporting producer, which was not
granted MET, also requested individual treatment. The
Commission consequently sought and verified all infor-
mation deemed necessary for the purposes of deter-
mining whether the company qualified for individual
treatment. It was found that the export prices and export
quantities and conditions and terms of sale were freely

determined. The Commission is reasonably assured, that
there is no risk of circumvention of the measures if that
exporter were granted individual treatment in this case.

(69)

It was therefore considered justified to grant individual
treatment
to OJSC Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling
Plant, Dnipropetrovsk.

3. Dumping

Selection of the analogue country

(70) According to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, for
companies to which MET could not be granted, normal
value has to be established on the basis of the price or
constructed value in an analogue country.

(71)

(72)

(73)

(74)

(75)

initiation of

In the notice of
the
Commission indicated its intention to use Turkey as an
analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal
value for Ukraine, and invited interested parties to
comment on this intention.

the proceeding,

The investigation revealed that Turkey was experiencing
considerable inflationary movements on its domestic
market as well as a considerable devaluation of
its
currency, the Turkish lira, during the IP. Consequently,
other options with regard to the choice of the analogue
country were also explored by the Commission.

In that respect it is recalled that the cooperation from
producers in Poland and Thailand was very limited, and
only rudimentary information was available with regard
to the normal value in these countries. Therefore, Poland
and Thailand seemed not to be an appropriate choice.

The Commission examined further the possibility of
using the Czech Republic as an analogue country in this
case. The information obtained for the Czech domestic
market in the course of the investigation showed that
the Czech Republic, with only two producers, a limited
number of consumers, restricted import volumes due to
duties on imports from certain countries, as well as
production processes which were not, in all cases, the
most efficient ones, would not be the most appropriate
choice as an analogue country in this case.

It is noted that no objections were raised from any
interested party with regard to the initial proposal for
Turkey. Turkey has numerous producers (13 exporting
producers cooperated in this investigation) with modern
and efficient production processes manufacturing tubes
according to international standards directly comparable
to the tubes produced in the Ukraine, as well as a
sufficiently sized supply and demand structure on the
domestic market, supplied with unrestricted imports.
The Turkish domestic sales were also representative as
compared to the Ukrainian export volume of
the
product concerned to the Community.

L 83/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.3.2002

(76)

In view of the above it was provisionally concluded that
Turkey would be the most appropriate and reasonable
analogue country in accordance with Article (2)(7) of the
basic Regulation.

the normal value as established for the cooperating
Ukrainian exporting producer (see recital 78) and reli-
able and representative export price data as recorded
under Eurostat showed a provisional residual dumping
margin of 44,1 %, at cif Community frontier level.

(77)

(78)

Determination of normal value in the analogue country

to Article 2(7)(a) of

Pursuant
the basic Regulation
normal value for Ukraine was established on the basis of
verified information received from producers in the
analogue country, i.e. on the basis of the prices paid or
payable on the domestic market in Turkey for tube types
comparable to those sold by the Ukrainian exporting
producer to the Community.

those types of

Since domestic sales by the Turkish producers concerned
tubes comparable to Ukrainian
for
exports were made in the ordinary course of
trade,
the
normal value was established on the basis of
monthly weighted average domestic sales prices of the
product concerned to unrelated customers by the coop-
erating Turkish producers in accordance with Article
2(4) of the basic Regulation.

Export price

D. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

1. Total Community production

(83) Within the Community,

the product considered is
manufactured by 11 producers located in France, Italy,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the
United Kingdom, on behalf of which the complaint was
lodged and by eight other producers.

Nine of the 11 complainant Community producers fully
cooperated in the investigation. One of the eight others
submitted some basic information even though not fully
replying to the questionnaire and not being a complai-
nant, but supporting the investigation.

(84)

It is considered that all the above 19 producers consti-
tute the Community production within the meaning of
Article 4(1) of the Basic Regulation.

(79) All export sales to the Community by the cooperating
Ukrainian exporter were made directly to independent
importers in the Community and the export price was
established pursuant to Article 2(8) of the basic Regula-
tion by reference to the prices actually paid or payable.

(85)

(80)

(81)

(82)

Comparison

The comparison was made on an ex-factory basis and at
the same level of trade. In order to ensure a fair compar-
ison, account was taken,
in accordance with Article
2(10) of the basic Regulation, of differences in factors
which were claimed and demonstrated to affect prices
and price comparability. On this basis, allowances for
differences in transport and handling charges were
made.

Dumping margin

The comparison between the normal value and the
export price on a weighted to weighted average basis
showed the existence of dumping for the cooperating
exporting producer. The provisional dumping margin
expressed as a percentage of the cif import price at the
Community border is:

OJSC Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling
Plant, Dnepropetrovsk

30,9 %.

level of

The
cooperation from the Ukraine was
extremely low. The volume of exports covered by the
cooperating Ukrainian exporting producer represented
only some 3 % of the import data as registered under
Eurostat during the IP. The provisional residual dumping
margin for the Ukraine was therefore determined in
accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on
the basis of the facts available. A comparison between

2. Definition of the Community industry

total Community production of

The nine cooperating complainant Community produ-
cers fulfil the requirements of Article 5(4) of the Basic
Regulation, since they account for a major proportion of
the
the product
concerned,
in this case 65,8 %. They are therefore
deemed to constitute the Community industry within
the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic
Regulation and will hereinafter be referred to as the
‘Community industry’.

E. INJURY

1. Apparent Community consumption

(86)

For the calculation of the apparent consumption of the
product concerned on the Community market,
the
Commission added the sales volume of the Community
industry, of one other Community producer and an
estimated sales volume (on the basis of the complaint
and of the sales/production ratio of the Community
industry) of the remaining Community producers in the
Community to the total imports into the Community as
shown under CN codes 7306 30 51, 7306 30 59 and a
portion (as estimated on the basis of the complaint) of
imports made under CN codes 7306 30 71 and
7306 30 78.

(87) On this basis, between 1997 and the IP, apparent
consumption of
in the
Community decreased by 9 %. Apparent consumption
went from 887 969 tonnes in 1997 to 869 142 tonnes
in 1998,
to 870 600
to 845 961 tonnes in 1999,
tonnes in 2000 and to 806 042 tonnes in the IP.

the product

concerned

27.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 83/11

(88) Apparent consumption decreased by 2 % between 1997
and 1998 and by another 3 % between 1998 and 1999.
It increased by 3 % between 1999 and 2000. It should
be noted that the increase in the apparent consumption
in the year 2000 is mainly attributable to the accumula-
traders/importers for sales in the
tion of stocks of
following period. Apparent
consumption decreased
again by 7 % between 2000 and the IP. This decrease in
apparent Community consumption of 9 % (actual
consumption decreased at a lesser extent given the accu-
mulation in stocks in the year 2000) during the period
considered is attributable mainly to the slowdown of the
economic growth in the Community, in particular in the
construction sector and secondly to the substitution
effect of the product concerned with tubes made of
copper or plastic.

2. Cumulative assessment of

the effects of

the

imports concerned

(89)

(90)

The Commission examined whether imports of
the
product concerned originating in the Czech Republic,
Poland, Thailand, Turkey and the Ukraine should be
assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of
the basic Regulation.

The margin of dumping established in relation to the
imports from each of the countries concerned was more
than de minimis as defined in Article 9(3) of the basic
Regulation and the volume of imports from each of
these countries was not negligible.

countries

concerned and those of

(91) As regards the conditions of competition, the invest-
igation showed that the product concerned imported
from the
the
Community industry, considered on a type-by-type
basis, were alike in all their essential physical and tech-
nical characteristics. Furthermore, on that basis, these
products were interchangeable and were marketed in the
Community during the period considered mostly
through comparable sales channels (i.e. traders). There-
fore,
the products concerned were
considered to compete with each other and with the
ones produced in the Community.

the imports of

(92)

It was argued that
the Czech Republic and Ukraine
should be decumulated as imports from these countries
are only marginally directed to the Member States where
the Community industry is located. In this respect,
it
should be noted that
the Community is one single
market and the fact that the Community industry is not
located in each Member State to which part of the
imports were directed does not mean that these prod-
ucts are not competing in the same market.

(93) One

the

that

claimed

exporter

conditions

for
competition were not comparable as its sales to the
Community were made through a related company
unlike sales of the other exporting producers. It should
be noted that the related company in question is located
outside the Community and that sales made in the
the product concerned were made
Community of
through comparable sales channels as other imports and
as the Community industry. In addition,
it should be
noted that the question of whether to assess imports
from a country cumulatively with other imports is deter-
mined on a country-wide basis and is not an exam-

(94)

(95)

(96)

ination where it is decided for each individual exporter
whether its exports should be assessed cumulatively.

It was argued that imports originating in the Czech
Republic and Turkey should be decumulated from the
investigation as imports from these countries have
decreased their market shares since 1998. In this respect,
it should be noted that although imports originating in
the Czech Republic and Turkey decreased since 1998,
their volumes were not negligible. Moreover, the devel-
opment of import volumes alone is not decisive. It is
important to assess whether or not cumulation is appro-
the relevant conditions of
priate in the light of all
competition.
it should be noted that
imports from the Czech Republic and Turkey were inter-
changeable and marketed in the Community through
comparable sales channels as other imports and as sales
of the Community industry.

In this respect,

Furthermore, it was requested that imports originating in
the Czech Republic should be decumulated as they are
not causing injury or any threat of
injury to the
Community industry as their volume is below the ceiling
quota imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1968/
93 (1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1005/95 (2). It
should be noted that the quota imposed by the afore-
mentioned Regulation, was in force till the end of 1995
and that in the present investigation the period consid-
ered for the injury analysis is 1997 to the IP. The request
is therefore rejected.

It was also argued that Ukraine should be decumulated
as it has a low market share compared to the other
investigated countries. In this respect, it should be noted
that even if its market share were lower than the one
held by the other investigated countries,
it cannot be
considered as negligible as defined in Article 5(7) of the
basic Regulation. Moreover, in the context of an exam-
ination as to whether cumulation is appropriate, the
market share is not necessarily decisive. In this instance,
cumulation is considered appropriate in the light of the
conditions of competition, as imports from Ukraine
were interchangeable and marketed in the Community
through comparable sales channels as other imports and
as sales of the Community industry.

(97)

In the light of the above, the Commission provisionally
considered that all the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of
the basic Regulation were met and that imports from the
countries concerned should therefore be examined
cumulatively.

(1) OJ L 180, 23.7.1993, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 101, 4.5.1995, p. 35.

L 83/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.3.2002

3. Imports originating in the countries concerned

Between 2000 and the IP import prices remained practi-
cally stable.

Volume

(98)

(99)

(100)

The volume of imports of the product concerned from
the Czech Republic, Poland, Thailand, Turkey and
Ukraine into the Community increased by 16 % between
1997 and the IP.

The imports from the countries concerned increased by
19 % between 1997 and 1998 from 206 271 to
245 281 tonnes despite the fact that the Community
market decreased by 2 % over the same period. Subse-
quently, these imports decreased by 14 % between 1998
and 1999 to 211 204 tonnes and increased by 28 %
between 1999 and 2000 to 271 236 tonnes. They
decreased again by 12 % between 2000 and the IP
reaching 239 399 tonnes.

Imports from the sole Turkish exporter found not to
have dumped represented below 0,5 % of the imports
from Turkey and below 0,3 % of the imports from the
if these
countries concerned during the IP. Therefore,
volumes are excluded,
the increase in volume and
market share of dumped imports would remain signifi-
cant. Accordingly, the findings concerning prices and
undercutting for Turkey and the other
countries
concerned would essentially remain the same.

Market share

(101) The joint market share held by the five countries
concerned increased by 6,5 percentage points during the
period considered from 23,2 to 29,7 %. It increased by 5
percentage points between 1997 and 1998,
then
decreased by 3,2 percentage points between 1998 and
1999 and went up again by 9,4 percentage points
between 1999 and 2000. It then decreased in the period
2000 to the IP by 1,5 percentage points.

(102)

It should be noted that over the period 1997 to the IP
the increase in imports and market shares from the
countries concerned coincided with a decrease in
consumption by 9 %.

Prices

(a) P r i c e e v o l u t i o n

(103) Between 1997 and the IP, the average cif prices of
imports of certain welded tubes originating in the Czech
Republic, Poland, Thailand, Turkey and Ukraine evolved
from 401 ECU/EUR/tonne in 1997 to 422 ECU/EUR/
tonne in 1998, to 357 ECU/EUR/tonne in 1999, to 425
ECU/EUR/tonne in 2000 and to 423 ECU/EUR/tonne in
the IP.

(104) Average import prices increased by 5 % between 1997
and 1998, then decreased by 15 % between 1998 and
1999 following the decrease
in HRC prices and
increased again by 19 % between 1999 and 2000.

(b) P r i c e u n d e r c u t t i n g

(105) A comparison for comparable models of the product
concerned was made between the exporting producers'
and the Community industry's average selling prices in
the Community net of all rebates and taxes to unrelated
customers, at the same level of trade and adjusted for
differences
the
Community industry were at an ex-works level. The cif
Community frontier prices of exporting producers of the
countries concerned were adjusted for post importation
costs, on the basis of the information provided by the
cooperating unrelated importers.

terms. The prices of

in payment

(106) This comparison showed that during the IP the products
concerned originating in the countries concerned were
sold in the Community at prices which undercut the
Community industry's prices, when expressed as a
percentage of the latter, on average as follows: the Czech
Republic 15,6 %, Poland 14,5 %, Thailand 21,8 %,
Turkey 14,0 % and the Ukraine 33,0 %. It should also be
noted that the actual sales prices of the Community
were depressed as the industry was just above the break-
even point.

4. Situation of the Community industry

(107) Pursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the
Commission examined all relevant economic factors and
indices having a bearing on the state of the Community
industry.

(a) Capacity, production and capacity utilisation rate

(108) The production capacity remained practically stable
during the period between 1997 and the IP. There was
only a minimal increase between 1997 and 1998 from
1 105 257 to 1 110 257 tonnes as a result of the ratio-
nalisation of
the
complaining Community producers. It should be noted
that some producers produce other products in the same
production lines and their actual production capacity
was therefore allocated to the product concerned.

the production facilities by one of

(109) The production of the Community industry decreased by
20 % during the period considered from 463 949 in
1997 to 369 681 tonnes in the IP.

(110) Between 1997 and 1998 production decreased by 10 %.
Between 1998 and 1999 production increased by 4 %
and between 1999 and the IP the production of the
Community industry decreased continuously. It should
be noted that production decreased following the trend
of Community industry's decreasing sales.

27.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 83/13

(111) Given the practically stable capacity, capacity utilisation
followed the same trend as production. It decreased by
10 % between 1997 and 1998,
increased by 4 %
between 1998 and 1999 and then declined steadily by
15 % between 1999 and the IP. Accordingly, capacity
utilisation decreased by 21 % between 1997 and the IP
from 42 to 33 %.

(b) Stocks

(112) Some producers produce to order and therefore stocks
are goods awaiting despatch to customers while other
producers produce for stocks. In this context the evolu-
tion of stocks does not appear to be relevant for the
of
examination
the
Community
sake of
completeness the evolution of stocks is analysed below.
The level of closing stocks of the Community industry
evolved from 32 742 tonnes in 1997, to 35 615 tonnes
in 1998, to 34 314 tonnes in 1999, to 34 851 tonnes
in 2000 and to 34 359 tonnes in the IP.

of
economic
industry. However,

situation
the
for

the

(113) Stocks increased by 5 % during the period considered.
They increased by 9 % between 1997 and 1998, then
decreased by 4 % in 1999 and remained relatively stable
thereafter.

(c) Sales volume and market share

(114) The

sales by

the Community

industry on the
Community market to unrelated customers decreased by
17 % during the period considered from 407 142 tonnes
in 1997 to 338 088 tonnes in the IP. They amounted to
358 450 tonnes in 1998, to 386 739 tonnes in 1999
and to 346 696 tonnes in 2000.

(115) Within the period considered sales volume decreased by
12 % between 1997 and 1998,
increased by 8 %
between 1998 and 1999 and decreased thereafter by
13 %.

the Community

(116) This development should be seen in the light of the fact
industry, when faced with
that
increasing low priced imports originating in the coun-
tries concerned, had the choice of either maintaining its
sales prices at the expense of a negative development of
its sales volume and market share, or to lower its sales
prices and follow the trend of the imports concerned at
the expense of its profitability.

(117) Between 1997 and 1998,

the Community industry
increased its sales prices and thus suffered from a
decrease of its sales volume and market share. Between
1998 and 1999, the Community industry decreased its
prices increasing its sales and market shares. However,
between 1999 and the IP the increased volume of
low prices exerted a particular
dumped products at
negative effect on the Community industry's prices since
this did not lead only to a loss on sales and market
share, but also had a wider impact on profitability since
cost increases could not be passed on. It should be noted
that although the prices of dumped imports increased

during the period 1999 to the IP, this increase was not
sufficient
to
increase at a sufficient
to reach satisfactory
margins.

to allow Community industry's prices

level

(118) The market share held by the Community industry
decreased by 4 percentage points over the period consid-
ered,
It
amounted to 41,2 % in 1998, to 45,7 % in 1999 and to
39,8 % in 2000.

from 45,9 % in 1997 to 41,9 % in the IP.

(119) Within the period considered market share decreased by
4,7 percentage points between 1997 and 1998,
increased by 4,5 percentage points between 1998 and
1999, decreased by 5,9 percentage points between 1999
and 2000 and was 2,1 percentage points higher in the IP
compared to 2000.

(d) Growth

industry

decreased

(120) Between 1997 and the IP, when the Community
consumption decreased by 9 %, the sales volume of the
Community
The
Community industry thus lost 4 percentage points of its
market
imports
the
concerned increased by 6,5 percentage points during the
same period. Thus, the Community industry reduced its
presence in the market
to an extent exceeding the
decline in growth of the market between 1997 and the
IP.

share, whereas

share of

17 %.

the

by

(e) Sales prices

(121) The weighted average prices of the product concerned
sold by the Community industry increased by 2 % over
the period considered from 545 ECU/EUR/tonne in
1997 to 555 ECU/EUR/tonne in the IP.

(122) After an increase of 4 % between 1997 and 1998, prices
decreased by 14 % between 1998 and 1999 and
increased again by 15 % between 1999 and 2000. In the
IP prices were 1 % lower than in 2000.

(123) This evolution in prices should be seen in comparison
with the evolution of the cost of production. Between
the Community
1997 and 1998 the total cost of
industry increased by 3 % mainly because of
the
decrease in production. Between 1998 and 1999 the
costs of the Community industry decreased by 10 % due
to an important decrease in the costs of the main raw
material (HRC) which represents on average about 55 %
of the total costs and to an increase in production.
Between 1999 and 2000 the Community industry's
costs increased by 15 % as a consequence of an increase
in the cost of HRC and a decrease in production. In the
IP costs decreased by 1 %. During the period considered,
costs increased by 5 %. This increase in costs was not
fully reflected in prices as they only increased by 2 %
and as a consequence, the Community industry suffered
in terms of decreasing profitability.

L 83/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.3.2002

(f) Employment

(j) Profitability

(124) The level of employment of the Community industry
decreased from 1 085 persons employed in 1997 to
1 005 in 1998, to 901 in 1999, to 838 in 2000 and to
817 in the IP.

(125) The level of employment in the Community industry
decreased constantly between 1997 and the IP. This
sharp decrease is linked to the decrease in production
and sales and to an effort to increase productivity in
order to reduce unit costs.

(g) Productivity

(126) Productivity of

the Community industry's workforce,
measured as output per person employed per year,
developed from 475 tonnes per year per person
employed in 1997 to 468 in 1998, to 547 in 1999, to
528 in 2000 and to 517 in the IP.

(127) Productivity increased by 9 % over the period consid-

ered.

(h) Wages

(128) Between 1997 and the IP,

the average wage per
employee increased by 18 % from ECU/EUR 27 796 in
1997 to ECU/EUR 32 867 in the IP.

(129) Average wages per employee increased by 9 % between
1997 and 1998, they remained almost stable between
1998 and 1999 and increased again by 6 % between
1999 and 2000 and by 3 % between 2000 and the IP.
When analysing wages account should be taken of the
fact
the companies composing the
Community industry also produce other products and
are part of groups of companies, the increase in wages
also reflects the situation of other activities and/or of the
group.

that as many of

(i) Investments

(130) The Community industry's total

investments in the
product concerned decreased by 75 % between 1997
to
and the IP from 4 444 000 ECU/EUR in 1997,
ECU/EUR 10 823 000
to
ECU/EUR 5 214 000 in 1999, to ECU/EUR 2 581 000
in 2000 and to ECU/EUR 1 116 000 in the IP.

1998,

in

(131) The Community industry's

investments more than
doubled between 1997 and 1998 mostly due to a
an old production line of one
replacement of
Community producer, to a new stock system for another
Community producer and to a slight technical increase
in capacity for a third Community producer.
Invest-
ments then dropped constantly and steadily between
1998 and the IP.

(132) During the period considered, profitability of sales in the
Community to unrelated customers in terms of return
on net sales before taxes decreased from 3,4 % in 1997
to 0,4 % in the IP. It was 5,1 % in 1998, 1 % in 1999
and 0,6 % in 2000.

(133) Profitability improved between 1997 and 1998 when
the increase of total costs by 3 % was reflected in the
increase of prices by 4 %, at the expenses of sale volume
(– 12 %) and market shares (– 10 %). Profitability then
decreased constantly during the following periods,
insufficient to ensure the long term
reaching a level
viability of
should be
the Community industry.
recalled that prices decreased by 14 % between 1998
and 1999 while costs only decreased by 10 % and that
in the following periods prices did not increase to a
further extent than the increase in costs.

It

(k) Cash flow, return on investments and ability to raise

capital

from ECU/EUR 14 413 000

(134) The net cash in(out) flow of operating activities, devel-
to
to
to
to

oped
ECU/EUR 25 697 000
ECU/EUR 17 722 000
ECU/EUR 15 201 000
ECU/EUR 10 282 000 in the IP.

in
1998,
1999

1997

2000

in
in

and

in

(135) The above indicator was provided at a total company
level, therefore it was allocated to the product concerned
on the basis of turnover. The cash flow of operating
activities increased by 78 % between 1997 and 1998. It
then decreased constantly between 1998 and the IP. It
decreased by 29 % over the period considered.

(136) The return on investments in terms of return on total
assets (ROTA), went from 3,5 % in 1997 to 0,5 % in the
IP. It amounted to 5,2 % in 1998, to 1,1 % in 1999 and
to 0,7 % in 2000.

(137) The return on total assets like the cash flow of operating
activities, was provided at a total company level and it
was therefore allocated to the product concerned on the
basis of turnover. It increased by 1,7 percentage points
between 1997 and 1998. It then decreased constantly
between 1998 and the IP. It decreased by 3 percentage
points over the period considered.

(138) The investigation has

shown that

the complaining
Community producers were not experiencing difficulties
in their ability to raise capital. In this respect it should be
noted that the Community industry and their groups
decided to support the welded tubes business and to
provide the necessary capital.

27.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 83/15

(l) Magnitude of dumping margin

ensure that possible injury caused by these other factors
was not attributed to the dumped imports.

(139) As concerns the impact on the Community industry of
the magnitude of the actual margin of dumping, given
the volume and the prices of the imports from the
countries concerned, this impact cannot be considered
to be negligible.

5. Conclusion on injury

(140) Between 1997 and the IP the volume of the dumped
imports of the product concerned originating in the
Czech Republic, Poland, Thailand, Turkey and Ukraine
increased significantly by 16 % and its share of
the
Community market went
from 23,2 % in 1997 to
29,7 % in the IP. The largest increase took place between
1999 and 2000, when the volume of dumped imports
increased by 28 % gaining 6,2 percentage points in
market shares. The average prices of dumped imports
from the five countries concerned were consistently
lower than those of the Community industry during the
period considered. Furthermore, during the IP the prices
of the imports from the countries concerned undercut
those of the Community industry by 16,8 % on average.

(141) The examination of the abovementioned factors shows
the
that between 1997 and the IP the situation of
Community industry deteriorated. This resulted in a
deteriorating market share of the Community industry.
Between 1997 and the IP, many injury indicators devel-
oped negatively: production decreased by 20 %, produc-
tion utilisation by 21 %, sales volume decreased by 17 %
and market share decreased by 4 percentage points,
employment decreased by 25 %, investments by 75 %,
the cash flow from operating activities by 29 % and the
ROTA decreased by 3 percentage points. Profitability
deteriorated from 3,4 % in 1997 to 0,4 % in the IP.
Prices could not increase at the same rate as costs.
Wages increased during the period considered following
mainly the development of inflation and productivity
while the increase in productivity in itself was not
enough
financial
performance of the Community industry.

unsatisfactory

avoid

the

to

(142)

In the light of the foregoing it is provisionally concluded
that
the Community industry has suffered material
injury within the meaning of Article 3 of the basic
Regulation.

F. CAUSATION

2. Effects of the dumped imports

(144) The significant increase in the volume of the dumped
imports by 16 %, i.e. from 206 271 tonnes in 1997 to
239 399 tonnes in the IP, and of its corresponding share
of the Community market, i.e. from 23,2 % in 1997 to
29,7 % in the IP as well as the undercutting found
(16,8 % on average during the IP) coincided with the
deterioration of
the
Community industry. This market penetration of the
dumped imports was particularly significant between
1999 and 2000, when the import volume increased by
28 % and the market share of the dumped imports by
6,2 percentage points.

situation of

economic

the

(145) During the same period,

the Community industry
suffered a loss of sales volume (– 17 %), market share
(– 4 percentage points) and a deterioration of profit-
ability (– 3 percentage points). This development should
be seen in the context of Community consumption of
the product concerned, which decreased by 9 % over the
period considered.

(146)

In addition, dumped prices were below those of the
Community industry throughout the period considered
and exerted a pressure on them which prevented the
Community industry's prices from developing at
the
same rate as the increase in the costs of production
between 1997 and the IP thus reducing the already low
level of profitability of the Community industry.

(147)

It is therefore considered that the dumped imports had a
the
significant negative impact on the situation of
Community industry.

3. Effects of other factors

(a) Performance of other Community producers

(148) One Community producer not being part of

the
Community industry and representing less than 5 % of
the total Community production in the IP provided
some information. As the data submitted refer only to
one company, exact figures could not be given but only
ranges covering these exact figures in order to preserve
confidentiality of the data submitted in accordance with
Article 19 of the basic Regulation.

1. Introduction

(149)

(143)

the Commission examined whether

In accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic
Regulation,
the
dumped imports of the product concerned originated in
the countries concerned have caused injury to the
Community industry to a degree that enables it to be
classified as material. Known factors other than the
dumped imports, which could at
the same time be
injuring the Community industry, were also examined to

It was found that the production of the said Community
producer decreased by between 20 and 30 % over the
period considered. During the same period, the sales
volume decreased by between 20 % and 30 % and the
corresponding market share went down from between
5 % and 0 % in 1997 to between 3 % and – 2 % in the
IP.
the
aforementioned three indicators corresponds by and
large to the development of
the
Community industry.

It should be noted that

the development of

the situation of

L 83/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.3.2002

(150)

it

two other
In addition,
Community producers (Tubimar in Italy and Krieglach
in Austria) stopped production in the year 2000.

should be noted that

(151) The above seems to be an indication that other produ-
cers in the Community experienced similar problems as
the Community industry.

(158) Concerning the protective measures imposed by Russia,
it should be noted that these are not directed against
imports from the Community but against Ukrainian
imports. They can therefore partially explain the surge of
Ukrainian imports in search of new markets in the
it should be noted that
Community.
Ukrainian imports are covered by the present invest-
igation.

In this respect,

(b) Impact of the economic crisis in South East Asia

(159)

(152)

It was argued that any injury suffered by the Community
industry was caused by the economic crisis in South East
Asia.

injury

contributed to the

In view of the above, it is provisionally concluded that
the protective measures imposed by the USA and Russia
only
the
Community industry to a very limited extent and their
effect was consequently not such as to alter the finding
that there is a genuine and substantial relationship of
cause of and effect between the dumped imports from
the countries concerned and the material injury suffered
by the Community industry.

suffered by

(153)

It should be noted that the Asian crisis may be a cause
of the decrease in the price of the steel products and
therefore of the main raw material (HRC) used in the
if it
production of the product concerned. Therefore,
could have affected the upstream industry, the producers
of
from lower
prices of the main raw material. In fact when in 1999
the HRC prices were
the
at
Community industry was able to decrease its prices and
increase its sales.

the product concerned could benefit

lowest

level,

their

(154)

It should be noted that the investigation did not show
any surge in imports of the product concerned from
Asian countries apart from Thailand which is part of the
present investigation.

(155)

In view of the above, it is provisionally concluded that
the Asian crisis did not contribute to the injury suffered
by the Community industry.

(c) Trade protective measures imposed by USA and Russia

(156)

It was argued that any injury suffered by the Community
industry was caused by the protective measures (safe-
guards) imposed by the USA and Russia.

(157) Concerning the protective measures imposed by the
USA, it should be noted that in the IP exports represent
about 8 % of the Community industry's total sales of the
product concerned. Exports decreased by 32 % between
1997 and the IP, i.e. by 14 000 tonnes. The decrease in
exports influenced the production level and the capacity
utilisation but it should be recalled that profitability is
calculated for
in the
Community and therefore a decrease in exports may
only have a minimal influence on profitability because
of higher fixed costs per unit. In addition, a decrease in
exports cannot explain the significant decrease in sales
(both in absolute figures and as a percentage) of the
Community industry in the Community.

to unrelated customers

sales

(d) Imports from other third countries

(160) According to the available information, the total import
volume of the product concerned originating in third
countries decreased by 28 % from 91 220 tonnes in
1997 to 65 706 tonnes in the IP, and their market share
by 2,1 percentage points over the same period from
10,3 % in 1997 to 8,2 % in the IP.

(161) As regards the weighted average cif prices of

these
imports, they have increased by 8 % between 1997 and
the IP,
from 434 ECU/EUR/tonne in 1997 to 470
ECU/EUR/tonne in the IP. It should be noted that the
prices of imports from other third countries were higher
than the weighted average prices of the imports from
the countries concerned during the period considered.

(162)

It has been argued that imports originating in Russia
should have been included in the investigation. It should
be noted that Russia held a market share below 1 %
during the IP and in addition no evidence was provided
showing dumping for this country.

(163) On the other hand,

it was found that only imports
originating in four countries other than the countries
concerned had a share of the Community market above
1 % during the IP, i.e. Romania, Hungary, Switzerland
and India.

(164) Regarding Romania and Hungary, it was found that their
market share decreased from 1997 to the IP (respectively
from 3,3 % to 1,4 % for Romania and from 1,7 % to
1,1 % for Hungary). Concerning Romania, it should be
noted that its market share was lower than 1 % in 2000
(0,6 %) and then increased suddenly in the IP. Average
import prices of the two countries have always been
lower than those of the imports from the investigated
countries with the exception of imports from Romania
in 2000.

27.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 83/17

(165) Regarding Switzerland and India, it was found that their
market shares were just above the 1 % threshold only in
the IP (1,1 % Switzerland and 1,05 % India) and their
prices were higher than those of the imports from the
investigated countries.

(166)

the small volume of

these imports on the
In conclusion, any effects of
situation was only marginal,
Community industry's
given the average prices,
these
imports and their limited market share. It is therefore
provisionally concluded that
the imports from third
countries only contributed to the injury suffered by the
Community industry to a very limited extent, if at all,
and that their effect was consequently not such as to
alter the finding that there is a genuine and substantial
relationship of cause and effect between the dumped
imports from the countries concerned and the material
injury suffered by the Community industry. Further-
more, neither the complainant nor the exporters have
submitted any evidence that these imports may have
been made at dumped prices.

4. Conclusion on causation

(167)

In conclusion, it is confirmed that the material injury of
the Community industry, which is characterised by
decrease in production (– 20 %), production utilisation
(– 21 %), sales volume (– 17 %), market share (from
45,9 % in 1997 to 41,9 % in the IP), employment
(– 25 %), investments (– 75 %), cash flow from operating
activities (– 29 %), ROTA (– 3 percentage points) and
profitability (from 3,4 % in 1997 to 0,4 % in the IP) was
caused by the dumped imports concerned. Indeed, the
effects of the performance of other Community produ-
cers, of the economic crisis in South East Asia, of the
trade protective measures imposed by the USA and
Russia and of
imports from third countries, on the
Community industry's negative developments in terms
of production, sales and profitability was only very
limited and consequently not such as to alter the finding
that there is a genuine and substantial relationship of
cause of and effect between the dumped imports from
the countries concerned and the material injury suffered
by the Community industry.

(168)

It is therefore provisionally concluded that the dumped
imports originating in the Czech Republic, Poland, Thai-
land, Turkey and the Ukraine have caused material
injury to the Community industry within the meaning of
Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.

G. COMMUNITY INTEREST

(169) The Commission examined whether, despite the conclu-
sions on dumping,
injury and causation, compelling
reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that
it is not in the Community interest to adopt measures in
this particular case. For this purpose, and pursuant to

Article 21(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission
considered the likely impact of measures for all parties
concerned in the investigation.

1. Interest of the Community industry

Nature and structure of the Community industry

(170) The Community industry is composed of nine compa-
nies. Almost all of them are part of international groups
acting mainly in the steel sector. None of
them is
upstream or downstream integrated but many of them
purchase the main raw material
from other
companies of
their group at market prices. The
Community industry employed a total of 9 483 people
out of which 817 were employed directly for the
product concerned in the IP.

(HRC)

Possible effects of the imposition/non-imposition of measures
on the Community industry

(171) Following an imposition of measures, it is expected that
the volume of sales of the product concerned by the
Community industry on the Community market would
rise. This would enable the Community industry to
recover lost market shares and, by increasing capacity
utilisation, decrease unit production costs and further
the
increase productivity. Furthermore,
Community industry's prices would in all
likelihood
increase moderately, although not by the level of any
anti-dumping duty since competition will still remain
amongst Community producers, imports originating in
the countries concerned made at non-dumped or non-
injurious prices and imports originating in other third
countries. In conclusion it is expected that the increase
in production and sales volume, on the one hand, and
the further decrease in unit costs, on the other hand,
combined with a moderate price increase, will allow the
Community industry to improve its financial situation.

the level of

(172) On the other hand, should anti-dumping measures not
be imposed, it is likely that the negative trend of the
Community industry will continue. The Community
industry is particularly marked by a loss of sales volume
and market shares and insufficient profitability. Indeed,
in view of the decreasing sales volume and the material
injury suffered during the IP,
the
financial situation of the Community industry will dete-
riorate further in the absence of any measures. This will
in all
likelihood lead to further cuts in production,
closures of certain production lines and therefore
threaten
the
and
Community as has already happened in the past to other
Community producers.

is obvious that

employment

investments

in

it

L 83/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.3.2002

Conclusion

(173)

In conclusion, the imposition of anti-dumping measures
would allow the Community industry to recover from
the injurious dumping found.

2. Interest of unrelated importers/traders in the

Community

(174) The distribution of

the product concerned in the
Community is characterised by the presence of impor-
ters/traders who trade in a large number of other prod-
ucts as well. Both Community industry and exporting
producers sell their products in the Community through
traders.

(175) Given the large number of

the
importers involved,
Commission decided to apply sampling pursuant
to
Article 17 of the basic Regulation and announced this in
the notice of initiation accordingly. It also contacted 117
importers listed in the complaint asking for their total
turnover, their total number of employees, their volume
imports into and resales made in the
and value of
Community market during the IP of
the product
concerned.

(176) Answers from 32 companies have been received within
the deadline, out of which 16 declared not
to be
concerned by the investigation as they did not import
from the countries concerned or they did not import the
product concerned at all during the IP; six did not state
their willingness to be included in the sample; three did
not provide the volumes imported or reported imports
including products other than the product concerned.

(177) Of

the remaining seven companies,

five have been
chosen for the sample on the basis of largest repres-
entative volume of imports.

(178) Two of the five companies selected did not answer the
Commission's questionnaire and one other declared that
it was related to an exporting producer at a later stage of
the proceeding. The two companies which cooperated
represent about 5 % of the total import volume of the
product concerned from the countries concerned in the
Community during the IP:

— Kromat Trading Ltd, London, United Kingdom,

— Thyssen Mannesmann, Woking, United Kingdom.

(179) Should anti-dumping measures be imposed, it is possible
that the level of imports originating in the countries
concerned may decrease. Furthermore,
it cannot be
excluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures
may result in a moderate increase in the prices of the
product concerned in the Community, thus affecting the
economic situation of importers and traders.

(180) However, the impact of any anti-dumping duty on the
situation of importers and traders should be seen in the
light of the small part of their overall activities repre-
sented by trade in the product concerned. On the basis
of the information provided by the cooperating impor-
the product
it has been found that
ters/traders,
concerned represented on average about 10 % of the
cooperating companies' total turnover. Thus, the effect
of any measures on the traders' overall business would
be limited. Furthermore, the effect on importers/traders
of the increase in the prices of imports of certain welded
tubes will depend on their ability to pass on increases in
prices to their customers. Given the low proportion of
the product concerned in costs of users, it is likely that
importers/traders pass any increases in prices of the
product concerned on to users.

(181) On this basis, it has been provisionally concluded that
the imposition of anti-dumping measures is not likely to
have a serious negative effect on the situation of impor-
ters/traders in the Community.

3. Interest of the user industry

(182) The main user of

the product concerned in the
Community is the construction industry. Consequently,
the demand for the product concerned is primarily
dependent upon the evolution of construction works in
the private and industrial sectors.

(183) Questionnaires were sent to nine associations of users
which were invited to forward copies of the question-
naire intended for users to those of
their members
which were concerned by the investigation. In addition,
questionnaires were sent directly to four known users.
No questionnaire replies were received either from inter-
ested users or their representative associations.

(184) Given the non-cooperation of the users and their asso-
ciations in the investigation and given the low impact of
certain welded tube costs compared to other costs (for
example in building a house) for users, it can be provi-
sionally concluded that
the imposition of any anti-
dumping measure is not likely to cause a considerable
increase in their costs and seriously affect their situation.

4. Interest of the upstream industry

(185) Questionnaires were sent to eight producers of the main
raw material used in the production of the product
concerned (HRC), and four of them cooperated in the
investigation:

— Duferco La Louvière, Belgium,

— Stahlwerke Bremen, Germany,

— Riva Group SpA, Italy,

— Usinor, France.

27.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 83/19

(186) The cooperating companies had a joint

turnover in
2000 of
around EUR 17 412 million and they
employed around 92 000 people. Their sales of HRC
represented on average around 0,5 % of their turnover
and sales within the Community represented on average
98 % of their total HRC volume of sales. Between 1998
and the IP their sales of HRC increased by 8 % in terms
of value and by 3 % in terms of volume. In terms of
volume, sales increased by 50 % between 1998 and
1999 and then decreased by 31 % between 1999 and
the IP. One producer stopped its production of HRC in
2000 due to the low volume and price. Producers of
HRC also supply this material to producers of products
other than the product concerned.

(187)

If measures were imposed, HRC producers will continue
to benefit of the existence of part of the market of HRC
in the Community.

6. Conclusion on Community interest

(192) The effects of

the imposition of measures can be
expected to afford the Community industry with the
opportunity to regain lost sales and market shares and
to improve its profitability. On the other hand, in view
of the deteriorated situation of the Community industry,
there is a risk that in the absence of measures, certain
Community producers may close down their production
lines or even whole production facilities and,
in that
event,
the Community market will become more
dependent on imports.

(193) Whilst some negative effects are likely to result in the
form of decrease in the volumes imported and moderate
price increases for the importers/traders, the extent of
these may be reduced by decreasing margins or by
passing the increase on to the users.

against

(188) Producers of HRC in the Community faced unfair
competition in the past and antidumping measures are
imports originating in
presently in force
Bulgaria, India, South Africa, Taiwan and Yugoslavia (1)
and countervailing measures are in force against India
and Taiwan (2). In addition, quantitative restrictions are
imposed
and
Ukraine (4). If measures are not imposed, HRC producers
are likely to face a reduction in demand and have even
more difficulties in recovering from past dumping.

on HRC originating

in Russia (3)

(189) On this basis, it has been provisionally concluded that
the imposition of anti-dumping measures is in the
interest of producers of the main raw material used in
the production of
the product concerned in the
Community.

5. Consequences for relations with third countries

(190)

It has been argued that the imposition of measures is
against the Community interest as it is contrary to the
Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the EC
and the Ukraine (PCA) and in addition it is alleged to be
in conflict with the EC-Czech Europe Agreement.

(191)

It should be noted that the abovementioned agreements
do not prevent either party from taking appropriate
measures against dumping practices in accordance with
its own legislation and the relevant provisions of the
agreement.

(1) Commission Decision No 283/2000/ECSC (OJ L 31, 5.2.2000, p.
15), as last amended by Decision No 1357/2001/ECC (OJ L 182,
5.7.2001, p. 27).

(2) Commission Decision No 284/2000/ECSC (OJ L 31, 5.2.2000, p.
44), as last amended by Decision No 2071/2000/ECC (OJ L 246,
30.09.2000, p. 32).

(3) Commission Decision No 2136/97/ECSC (OJ L 300, 4.11.1997, p.

15).

(4) Commission Decision No 1401/97/ECSC (OJ L 193, 22.7.1997, p.

12).

(194) Users,

in

turn,

serious
consequences from such an increase given the likely low
incidence of certain welded tubes on their final products.

unlikely

suffer

are

to

(195) With the imposition of measures, the upstream industry
will continue to benefit from the existence of a demand
of HRC in the Community market.

(196)

In the light of the above, it is provisionally concluded
that no compelling reasons exist for not imposing meas-
ures in the present case and that the application of
measures would be in the interest of the Community.

H. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

(197)

the conclusions reached with regard to
In view of
injury, causation and Community interest,
dumping,
to
provisional measures
prevent further injury to the Community industry by the
dumped imports.

should be taken in order

1. Injury elimination level

(198) The level of

the provisional anti-dumping measures
should be sufficient
to eliminate the injury to the
Community industry caused by the dumped imports,
without exceeding the dumping margins found. When
calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the
effects of the injurious dumping, it was considered that
any measures should allow the Community industry to
cover its costs and obtain overall a profit before tax that
could be reasonably achieved under normal conditions
of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports.

L 83/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.3.2002

(199) On the basis of the information available, it was preliminarily found that a profit margin of 5 % of
turnover could be regarded as an appropriate minimum which the Community industry could be
expected to obtain in the absence of injurious dumping, taking into account the level of profitability
obtained by the Community industry in the period 1997 to 1998.

(200) The necessary price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison, at the same level of
trade, of the weighted average import price, as established for the price undercutting calculations,
with the non-injurious price of products sold by the Community industry on the Community
market. The non-injurious price has been obtained by adjusting the sales price of each company
composing the Community industry to a break even point and by adding the abovementioned profit
margin. Any difference resulting from this comparison was then expressed as a percentage of the
total cif import value.

(201) The injury elimination margins found were as follows:

Country

Company

Injury margin

Turkey

Yücel Boru Profil Endüstrisi SA

Cayrova Borou San Ve Tic AS

Borusan Birslesik Borou Fabrikalari SA

Mannesmann Boru Endustrisi TAS

Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi AS

Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii VE Ticaret AS

Non-sampled cooperating companies

— Borutas Boru Sanayii Ve Ticaret AS

— Cinar Boru Profil San. Tic. LTD STI

— Guven Boru VE Profil Sanayi Ve Ticaret Limited

— Özdemir Boru San.ve Ticaret AS

— Sevil Boru-Profil Sanayii Ve Ticaret AS

— Toscelik Profil Ve Sac. Endüstrisi AS

— Özborsan San.ve Ticaret AS

All other companies

Czech Republic

Jäkl Karvina

Zelezarny Veseli a.s.

All other companies

Poland

Huta Buczek

All other companies

Ukraine

OJSC Nizhnedeneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant

All companies

Thailand

All companies

29,4 %

29,4 %

21,2 %

21,2 %

21,3 %

8,0 %

23,0 %

23,0 %

23,0 %

23,0 %

23,0 %

23,0 %

23,0 %

29,4 %

19,8 %

53,1 %

53,1 %

0,0 %

23,0 %

61,6 %

61,9 %

35,2 %

27.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 83/21

2. Provisional anti-dumping measures

(202)

In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic
Regulation, a provisional anti-dumping duty should be imposed in respect of imports originating in
the Czech Republic, Poland, Thailand, Turkey and the Ukraine at the level of the dumping margins
found, or at the level of the injury margins found,

if these are lower.

3. Undertakings

(203) Pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Europe Agreement concluded between the European
Community and its Member States, on the one part, the Czech Republic and Poland on the other
part, as well as Article 46 of Decision No 1/95 of the EU-Turkey Association Council on imple-
menting the final phase of the customs union, cooperating exporting producers in the Czech
Republic, Poland and Turkey received early information on the findings of the investigation. A
number of the companies concerned expressed their willingness to offer a price undertaking. Their
offers continue to be examined by the Commission, in particular with a view to ascertaining whether
any minimum price levels proposed are sufficient to remove injurious dumping.

I. FINAL PROVISION

(204)

In the interest of a sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties
may make their views known in writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated that
the findings made for the purpose of this Regulation are provisional and may have to be reconsid-
ered for the purpose of any definitive finding,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.
A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of welded tubes and pipes of iron or
non-alloy steel, of circular cross-section and of an external diameter not exceeding 168,3 mm, excluding
tubes and pipes of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines, of a kind used in drilling for oil or gas, or with
attached fittings for use in civil aircraft, other than precision tubes, falling within CN codes ex 7306 30 51,
ex 7306 30 59, ex 7306 30 71, and ex 7306 30 78 (TARIC-codes 7306 30 51 10, 7306 30 59 10,
7306 30 71 10, 7306 30 71 20, 7306 30 78 10 and 7306 30 78 20), and originating in the Czech
Republic, Poland, Thailand, Turkey and Ukraine.

The rate of duty applicable to the net-at-Community-frontier price, before duty,

2.
produced by the following companies shall be as follows:

for products

Country

Company

Rate of duty
(%)

TARIC addi-
tional code

Turkey

Yücel Boru Profil Endüstrisi AS

Cayrova Boru San Ve Tic AS

Borusan Birslesik Boru Fabrikalari AS

Mannesmann Boru Endustrisi TAS

Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi AS

Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret AS

4,2

4,2

9,8

9,8

0,0

8,0

A330

A331

A332

A333

A334

A335

L 83/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.3.2002

Country

Company

Rate of duty
(%)

TARIC addi-
tional code

Non-sampled cooperating companies:

— Borutas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret AS

— Cinar Boru Profil San. Tic. Ltd STI

— Guven Boru ve Profil Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd

— Özdemir Boru Profil San. Ve Ticaret AS

— Sevil Boru-Profil Sanayii ve Ticaret AS

— Toscelik Profil ve Sac. Endüstrisi AS

— Özborsan Boru San. Ve Ticaret AS

All other companies

Czech Republic

Jäkl Karvina

All other companies

Poland

Huta Buczek

All other companies

Ukraine

OJSC Nizhnedeneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant

All other companies

Thailand

All companies

8,0

8,0

8,0

8,0

8,0

8,0

8,0

12,7

19,8

53,1

0,0

23,0

30,9

44,1

35,2

A336

A337

A338

A339

A340

A341

A342

A999

A343

A999

A344

A999

A345

A999

—

The release for free circulation in the Community of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be

3.
subject to the provision of a security, equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.

4.

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

Article 2

1. Without prejudice to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, interested parties requesting disclosure
of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, shall present
their views in writing and request a hearing from the Commission within one month of the date of entry
into force of this regulation.

Pursuant to Article 21(4) of Regulation No 384/96, the parties concerned may request a hearing
2.
concerning the analysis of the Community interest and may comment on the application of this Regulation
within one month of the date of its entry into force.

Article 3

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

Article 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of six months.

27.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 83/23

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

Done at Brussels, 26 March 2002.

For the Commission

Pascal LAMY

Member of the Commission