Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping duties 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: 2002-08-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Czechia, Poland, Thailand, Türkiye, Ukraine, anti-dumping duty, import, originating product, piping, tube

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 28.08.2002
COM(2002) 475 final

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

imposing definitive anti-dumping duties 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

(presented by the Commission)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

On  29  June  2001  an  anti-dumping  proceeding  was  initiated  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.

On 28 March 2002, the Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 540/2002, imposed 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  attached  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  is  based  on  the  definitive  findings  on
dumping,  injury,  causation  and  Community  interest,  which  confirmed  that  definitive  anti-
dumping measures are warranted 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  level  of  the  proposed  measures  is  between  17.9%  and  52.6%  for  the  Czech  Republic,
between 0.0% and 23.0% for Poland, between 21.7% and 35.2% for Thailand, between 0.0%
and 6.0% for Turkey and between 30.9% and 44.1% for Ukraine.

A number of companies expressed their willingness to offer a price undertaking. Due to the
volatility of the prices for welded tubes and the risk of compensation in prices for the different
products price undertakings are not considered to be suitable in this particular case.

Member States were consulted on 25 July 2002. 10 Member States voted in favour (UK, LU,
ES, IT, FI, FR, PT, BE, GR, IE), 3 Member States voted against the imposition of measures
(SE, DK, DE) and 2 Member States abstained (AT, NL).

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Council Regulation
which should be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities no later than
27 September 2002.

2

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

imposing definitive anti-dumping duties 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 COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having  regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection
against  dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community1  (Basic
Regulation), and in particular Article 9 thereof,

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

Whereas:

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

(1)

(2)

The  Commission  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  540/20022  (the  “Provisional  Regulation”)
imposed  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  certain  welded  tubes  and
pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel 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), originating in the
Czech Republic, Poland, Thailand, Turkey and the Ukraine.

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE

Subsequent to the disclosure of the  essential facts and considerations on  the basis of
which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures, several interested
parties  made  written  submissions  making  their  views  known  on  the  provisional
findings. The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard.

(3)

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

1

2

OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000, OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2.
OJ L 83, 27.3.2002, p. 3.

3

                                                
(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

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

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

C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

In the absence of any comment received after the disclosure of the provisional findings
on the product concerned and the like product, the provisional findings as described in
recitals 12 to 15 of the Provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

D. DUMPING

Poland and Ukraine

In the absence of any new argument on dumping, the provisional findings as described
in recitals 37 to 43 for Poland and 60 to 85 for Ukraine of the Provisional Regulation
are hereby confirmed.

Czech Republic

One  Czech  exporting  producer,  Zelezárny  Veseli  has  reacted  to  the  Commission’s
provisional  findings,  claiming  that  they  were  allegedly  subject  to  higher  technical
testing  standards  for  tube  types  sold  on  the  domestic  market  in  the  Czech  Republic
than for the tube types exported to the Community market. It is noted that this claim
was only introduced at a very advanced stage of the investigation, and could therefore
not be checked during the on-spot-verification carried out at the exporter premises. In
addition,  the  Czech  exporting  producer  did  not  bring  forward  any  evidence  which
would support his claim. Moreover, in his reply to the Commission's questionnaire the
company  stated  that  quite  to  the  contrary  to  his  present  claim,  Czech  and  foreign
standards for the product concerned are comparable and that a price comparison does
not  require  an  adjustment  in  that  respect.  Also  no  other  information  obtained  during
the  investigation  with  regard  to  sales  of  the  product  concerned  on  the  Czech  market
would  suggest  that  justified  differences  in  technical  standards  exist.  The  claim  had
therefore to be rejected.

(9)

The provisional level of dumping for this producer is hereby confirmed.

(10)

For  the  other  Czech  exporting  producer,  Jäkl  Karvina,  a  substantiated  claim  for
differences  in  physical  characteristics  between  the  type  of  tube  chosen  for  normal
value and the type sold for export to the Community was made.

(11)

This  claim  was  considered  justified  and  the  final  dumping  margin  was  accordingly
recalculated at 28.3%.

4

Turkey

(12) With regard to Turkey, minor corrections concerning daily exchange rates and interest

rates were requested by three companies and accepted where justified.

(13) After  receiving  the  definitive  disclosure  calculations,  companies  claimed  that  the
dumping  margin  should  have  been  established  on  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of
weighted average normal values with a weighted average of all export transactions to
the  Community  on  the  grounds  that  exports  did  not  differ  significantly  among
purchasers, regions or time periods. The dumping was not a “targeted dumping” over
time by these companies, but a situation created by the devaluation of the Turkish lira
in February 2001, i.e. in the middle of the IP. The allegations made by the companies
have  been  verified  and  it  was  found  that  the  differences  in  prices  were,  in  fact,  not
significant.  Consequently,  the  basis  of  calculation  has  been  changed  to  the  above
method. This led to a reduction in the dumping margins of the companies concerned.

(14)

The final dumping margins for the co-operating companies included in the sample are:

– 

– 

Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S., Ankara

0%

Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari A.S., Istanbul

and Mannesmann Boru Endustrisi A.S., Istanbul

5.0%

– 

Cayirova Boru San Ve Tic A.S., Istanbul

and Yücel Boru Profil Endüstrisi A.S., Istanbul

0%

– 

Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S., Kayseri

6.0%

(15)

This  exercise  led  to  a  revised  weighted  average  dumping  margin  of  5.2%  for  the
following co-operating companies not included in the sample:

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Borutas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S., Adapazari

Cinar Boru Profil San. Tic. Ltd.STI, Eregli

Guven Boru ve Profil Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti., Istanbul

Özdemir Boru Profil San.ve Ticaret A.S., Eregli

Sevil Boru-Profil Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S., Istanbul

Toscelik Profil ve Sac. Endüstrisi A.S., Iskenderun

Özborsan Boru San.ve Ticaret A.S., Istanbul

(16)

The  level  of  co-operation  for  Turkey  was  high  and  the  residual  definitive  dumping
margin  was  set  at  the  same  level  as  for  the  highest  margin  level  of  a  co-operating
company, i.e. 6.0%.

5

Thailand

(17) An  on-spot  investigation  was  carried  out  after  publication  of  the  Provisional
Regulation at the premises of Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co Ltd, the sole Thai cooperating
exporting  producer.  This  Thai  producer  initially  replied  to  the  questionnaire  but  had
not been in a position to accept an on-spot verification in due time.

Normal value

(18) As far as normal value is concerned, the general methodology set out in recitals 17 to
24  of  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No 540/2002  of  26 March  2002  for  all  market
economy  countries  concerned  has  been  applied  for  this  sole  co-operating  Thai
producer.

(19)

The following describes only the findings that are specific to that company.

(20) 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,  normal  value  was  constructed  in  accordance  with
Article  2(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  For  that  purpose  the  co-operating  exporting
producer’s  own  cost  of  production  and  the  company's  own  SG&A  expenses  and
profits were used.

Export price

(21)

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

Comparison

(22)

In  accordance  with  the  methodologies  followed  in  recital  26  of  the  Provisional
Regulation,  adjustments  were  made  for  transport,  ancillary  costs  (bank  charges),
insurance  and  credit  costs,  for  differences  in  physical  characteristics  and  for  duty
drawback.

Dumping margin

(23)

In  accordance  with  the  methodologies  followed  in  recital  27  of  the  Provisional
Regulation,  the  comparison  between  the  normal  value  and  the  export  price  on  a
weighted to weighted average basis was applied and this method showed the existence
of dumping in respect of the sole co-operating exporting producer.

(24)

The definitive dumping margin  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF  import  price  at
the Community border for this company is:

Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co Ltd

21.7%

6

(25) With regard to the determination of the residual duty, as the level of co-operation for
Thailand  was  very  low,  the  methodology  described  in  recitals  28  and  48  of  the
Provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. The  residual dumping margin  expressed
as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community border is 37.6%.

E. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

(26)

In  the  absence  of  any  new  argument  on  the  Community  production  and  on  the
definition of the Community industry, the provisional findings as described in recitals
83 to 85 of the Provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

F. INJURY

1. Community consumption

(27)

In the absence of any comment received after the disclosure of the provisional findings
on the Community consumption, the provisional findings as described in recitals 86 to
88 of the Provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

2. Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned

It  was  argued  that  in  line  with  previous  practice3,  imports  from  the  Czech  Republic
should not be cumulated with imports originating in the other countries concerned as
the  evolution  of  imports  and  prices  of  the  Czech  Republic  during  the  period
considered  diverged  from  the  evolutions  observed  for  the  other  countries  concerned.
Secondly,  it  was  argued,  that  Czech  imports  do  not  undercut  Community  industry’s
prices and are not in competition with imports from the other investigated countries as,
unlike them, destined for Germany.

It  should  be  noted  that  in  the  cases  referred  to,  the  diverging  trends  of  imports  and
prices  were  not  in  themselves  decisive  but  only  one  element  which  was  considered.
The conclusions to cumulate or decumulate were based on a number of other factors.
What  is  important  are  the  conditions  listed  in  Article  3(4)  of  the  Basic  Regulation
(margin of dumping more than de minimis, volume of imports not negligible and same
conditions  of  competition  between  imported  products  and  the  conditions  of
competition between the imported products and the like Community product).

Firstly,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  dumping  margin  of  Czech  imports  was  above  de
minimis.

Secondly,  although  imports  originating  in  the  Czech  Republic  decreased  constantly
since  1998,  the  volume  of  imports  during  the  IP  was  not  negligible.  Moreover,  it
should  be  noted  that  although  according  to  Eurostat  average  prices  of  imports
originating in the Czech Republic increased constantly since 1999, they were found to
substantially  undercut  Community  industry’s  prices  in  the  IP,  as  were  imports
originating in the other investigated countries. In this respect it should be noted that as
within  the  product  concerned  different  models  with  different  prices  exist,  the
calculations  were carried out for comparable models of  the  product  concerned  at the

3

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  3319/94  concerning  urea  ammonium  nitrate  solution  originating  in
Bulgaria  and  Poland  (OJ  L  350,  31.12.1994,  p.  20)  and  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2022/95
concerning ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ L 198, 23.8.1995, p.1).

7

                                                
same  level  of  trade,  in  order  to  fully  reflect  the  price  behaviour  of  the  countries
concerned.

(32)

Thirdly, contrary to the submission by  Czech  exporters, cumulation is  appropriate in
the  light  of  the  conditions  of  competition.  In  this  respect,  it  should  be  noted  that
imports  from  the  Czech  Republic  are  interchangeable  with  other  imports  and  with
sales  by  the  Community  industry.  They  are  marketed  in  the  Community  through
comparable sales channels. It has been found that the Community industry as well as
exporters situated in  all the investigated  countries are all in part selling to Germany.
Moreover,  Eurostat  statistics  show  that  trade  flows  among  Member  States  are
important, this indicating that the market is Community wide. No other indication that
Czech sales of the product concerned were not in competition with sales originating in
the  other  investigated  countries  and  with  sales  of  the  Community  industry  has  been
found. Accordingly, there is no indication of a regionalisation of the market.

(33) Czech  exporters  also  argued  against  cumulating  on  the  basis  of  an  alleged  market
segmentation.  The  alleged  segmentation  of  the  Community  market  argued  to  be
evidenced  by  the  infringement  of  European  competition  law  by  two  companies
composing the Community industry. These two companies in the past made an illegal
agreement4 on market sharing, albeit for another product than the product concerned.

(34) However, the mere fact that two companies infringed the competition law prior to the
IP,  for  a  different  product  than  the  product  concerned  cannot,  in  the  absence  of  any
other  indication  concerning  such  a  behaviour  during  the  IP  and  for  the  product
concerned,  be  considered  as  a  proof  of  the  market  segmentation  in  the  present  case.
During the present investigation, no evidence was found that would show that such an
agreement was in force for the product concerned for any of the companies composing
the Community industry. This argument is therefore rejected.

(35)

Some  exporters reiterated the request 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  due  to  their  volume  being  below  the  ceiling  quota  imposed  by
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1968/935.  Czech  exporters  also  argued  in  favour  of
decumulation  pointing  to  the  increase  of  Community  exports  to  the  Czech  Republic
during  the  period  considered.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  quota  imposed  by  the
aforementioned Council Regulation was in force only until the end of 1995 and that in
the present investigation the period considered for the injury analysis is 1997 to the IP.
Furthermore, the level of Community exports to the Czech Republic as such provide
no support to the claim that Czech exports should be decumulated. This submission is
therefore rejected.

4

5

Commission Decision IV/E/-1/35.860 of 8 December 1999.
OJ L 180, 23.7.1993, p. 1 as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1005/95, OJ L 101, 4.5.1995, p. 35.

8

                                                
(36)

(37)

(38)

(39)

(40)

It  was  argued  that  as  the  Czech  Republic  was  subject  to  the  surveillance  of  exports
under the double-checking system established by Council Regulation (EC) No 87/986,
it  should  be  excluded  from  the  present  anti  dumping  proceeding.  However,  the
surveillance  system  is  in  place  purely  in  order  to  monitor  Czech  imports.  The  mere
fact  of  its  existence  does  thus  not  give  any  indication  either  in  favour  or  against
cumulating. Accordingly it cannot support a claim for decumulation. This argument is
therefore rejected.

Some  exporters  reiterated  the  claim  that  they  operate  under  different  conditions  of
competition either because their sales to the Community were made through a related
company  unlike  sales  of  the  other  exporting  producers  or  because  they  operated
without  immediate  access  to  raw  materials  and  had  consequently  longer  delivery
times.

The investigation showed that sales made by these exporters to the Community of the
product concerned  were mainly made through  sales channels comparable  both  to the
ones used by other exporters, and as well as the ones of the Community industry (i.e.
traders). In any event, the conditions of competition within the meaning of Art. 3(4) of
the  Basic  Regulation  are  established  on  a  country-wide  basis  and  not  examined  for
each individual exporter. These submissions are therefore rejected.

It  was  also  argued  that  imports  from  Ukraine  should  not  be  cumulated  with  imports
originating in the other countries concerned given the low volume of imports involved.

In  this  respect,  it  is  stressed  that  even  if  Ukraine’s  market  share  was  lower  than  the
ones held by the other investigated countries, it cannot be considered as negligible as
defined in Article  5(7) of the  Basic  Regulation  and  Article  5.8  of  the  Agreement  on
implementation  of  Article  VI  of  the  of  the  General  Agreement  on  Tariffs  and  Trade
1994. Furthermore, all the other conditions for cumulation as set out in Article 3(4) of
the Basic Regulation were met.

(41)

In  view  of  the  above,  as  there  were  no  new  facts  showing  that  the  conditions  for
cumulation  for  the  countries  concerned  were  not  met,  the  provisional  findings
concerning  the  cumulative  assessment  of  the  effects  of  the  imports  concerned,  as
described in recitals 89 to 97 of the Provisional Regulation, are hereby confirmed.

3. Imports originating in the countries concerned

(i)

Volume, Market share, Price evolution

(42)

In the absence of any new argument, the provisional findings concerning the volume,
the  market  share  and  the  price  evolution  of  the  imports  originating  in  the  countries
concerned, as described in recitals 98 to 104 of the Provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed.

6

OJ  L  13,  19.1.98,  p.  43  as  last  extended  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  844/2002,  OJ  L  135,
23.5.2002, p. 1.

9

                                                
(43)

It  should  be  noted  that  after  the  publication  of  the  Provisional  Regulation,  two
additional  Turkish  companies  were  found  not  to  have  dumped.  If  the  imports  from
these exporting producers were  excluded, the increase in volume  of dumped  imports
would  remain  significant,  as  shown  in  the  table  below,  namely  an  increase  of  20%.
The market share of the remaining dumped imports increased by 5.9 percentage points
during the period considered. The dumped imports still represented more than 24% of
the Community market during the IP.

Dumped imports

1997

1998

1999

2000

IP

Volume Tonnes

161 759

192 989

168 406

222 489

193 963

Index 1997=100

100

119

104

138

120

Market share

18,2%

22,2%

19,9%

25,6%

24,1%

(ii)

Price undercutting

(44) Concerning  imports  originating  in  Turkey,  it  is  confirmed  that  the  level  of
undercutting found was on average 14.0%. It has been established that if the imports
from  exporting  producers  found  not  to  have  dumped  are  excluded,  this  would  not
significantly alter the level of undercutting.

(45)

In  respect  of  imports  originating  in  the  Czech  Republic,  it  was  argued  that  a
comparison  of  Czech  export  prices  either  as  shown  in  Eurostat  statistics  or  in  some
individually selected cases, with the Community industry’s ones, would not show any
undercutting.  It  was  therefore  requested  that  the  undercutting  calculation  should  be
revised accordingly.

(46) According  to  normal  practice,  in  order  to  calculate  the  price  undercutting,  verified
average  Community  industry’s  and  average  exporters’  prices  were  compared  for  the
whole IP on a product type by product type basis and at the same level of trade. This
comparison did show undercutting, and accordingly, this argument had to be rejected.

(47)

(48)

It was argued that, as Eurostat statistics indicate lower prices in Germany than in the
other Member States, the undercutting calculation should be done comparing prices of
the  exporting  producers  with  the  prices  charged  by  the  Community  industry  in  each
Member State.

In  this  respect  it  should  be  noted  that  the  Community  is  considered  as  one  single
market for the purpose of anti-dumping investigations and it is normal practice that in
order  to  fully  reflect  the  undercutting  level,  the  undercutting  calculation  is  made
comparing  the  prices  of  each  exporting  producer  to  the  average  prices  of  the
Community  industry  as  a  whole.  In  addition,  it  should  be  noted  that  sales  of  the
product concerned  are  mainly  made  through traders who then sell to their customers
that  can  be  located  in  any  part  of  the  Community  market.  The  Eurostat  statistics
confirm, as they show an important level of intra-Community trade.

(49)

The  Thai  co-operating  exporter  claimed  that  in  order  to  compare  the  product
concerned  at  the  same  level  of  trade  than  that  of  the  Community  industry,  an
adjustment of 10% should be made to the CIF value of the imported goods in order to
reflect the importers’ SG&A and profits.

10

(50)

(51)

It  should  be  noted  that  the  prices  of  the  imported  product  concerned  have  been
increased  by  10€/tonne  in  order  to  reflect  the  costs  that  importers  incur  after
importation. Both Community industry and exporters are mainly selling to equal types
of  customers,  namely  importing  traders  who  then  sell  the  product  to  the  users.
Accordingly,  should  exporters’  prices  be  increased  as  requested,  they  would
effectively represent prices at a different level of trade than the ones of the Community
industry. In addition no backing evidence have been provided to support the request.
The request is therefore rejected.

In  the  absence  of  any  new  element  concerning  the  methodology  used  for  the
undercutting  calculation and  taking  into  account  the  correction  of  clerical  errors,  the
products  concerned  originating  in  the  countries  concerned  were  sold  in  the
Community in the IP at prices  which  on  average undercut  the Community  industry's
prices,  when  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  latter,  as  follows:  the  Czech  Republic
14.8%, Poland 14.5%, Thailand 21.4%, Turkey 14.0% and the Ukraine 33.0%.

4. Situation of the Community industry

(52)

In  the  absence  of  any  new  information  affecting  the  findings  of  the  situation  of  the
Community industry, the provisional findings as described in recitals 107 to 139 of the
Provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

5. Conclusion on injury

(53)

In the absence of any new information on the situation of the Community industry, the
provisional findings on the injury suffered by the Community industry as described in
recitals  140  to  142  of  the  Provisional  Regulation  are  hereby  confirmed,  with  the
exception of the average level of undercutting indicated in recital 140 which has been
revised to 16.6%.

G. CAUSATION

(54) No interested parties presented new arguments or evidence on causation. Nevertheless,
the effects  on  the  injury  suffered  by  the  Community  industry  by  the  impact  of  trade
protective  measures  imposed  by  third  countries  and  by  imports  originating  in  other
third countries were further investigated.

(55) Concerning the trade protective measures imposed by third countries, it was found that
even  if  the  level  of  total  exports  of  the  Community  industry  would  have  remained
stable  at  1997 level, the decrease  in  production  and  in  the  capacity  utilisation  of  the
Community  industry  between  1997  and  the  IP  would  nevertheless  have  remained
substantial.  This  is  due  to  the  minor  part  played  by  exports  compared  to  total  sales.
Whilst  exports  to  all  countries  (i.e.  not  only  to  the  ones  having  imposed  trade
protective  measures)  declined  between  1997  and  the  IP,  this  was  only  from  about
9.5% of total Community sales in 1997 to about 8% in the IP. Accordingly, the impact
of  the  trade  protective  measures  imposed  by  third  countries  was  negligible.  In
addition, stable exports would not have changed the decreasing trend in profitability.

11

(56) Concerning  imports  originating  in  Romania  and  Hungary  and  non-dumped  imports
originating  in  Turkey,  it  was  found  that  in  terms  of  volumes  they  cumulatively
decreased by 25% between 1997 and the IP. This negative trend is similar to the one
observed  for  sales  by  the  Community  industry  to  unrelated  customers,  which
decreased  by  17%.  It  is  also  opposite  to  the  increase  by  20%  in  dumped  imports
originating in the five investigated countries. In conclusion, the decreasing trend of the
volume  of  these  imports  and  the  low  market  shares  involved,  confirm  that  these
imports do not alter the findings on causation.

(57)

In  the  light  of  the  above,  the  findings  of  the  Provisional  Regulation  as  described  in
recitals 143 to 168 are hereby confirmed.

H. COMMUNITY INTEREST

(58)

(59)

(60)

(61)

(62)

Following the imposition of the provisional measures, the only comments received on
Community interests were provided by the Community industry which supported the
Commission’s  provisional  conclusions  that  the  imposition  of  any  anti-dumping
measure is not likely to cause a considerable increase in users’ costs or seriously affect
their situation.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  main  user  of  the  product  concerned  is  the
construction  industry  and  that  for  these  users  the  cost  of  laying,  installing  and
maintaining the conduits, as linked to the cost of manpower, is much more important
than the cost of tubes themselves. In addition, the cost of the installed piping itself is a
very small part of the total housing construction cost.

It  should  also  be  noted  that  as  the  product  concerned  is  mainly  sold  in  the  market
through traders, prices that end users will be actually charged will depend on traders’
pricing policy.

In view of the above and in the absence of any new information on the analysis of the
Community interest aspects of the case and in particular in the absence of cooperation
or reactions from users, the provisional findings as described in recitals 169 to 196 of
the Provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

It was argued that the present anti-dumping proceeding should be terminated in order
to  avoid  a  higher  level  of  protection  than  what  is  deemed  to  be  necessary  as  the
product concerned is included in the scope of the safeguard investigation initiated on
28 March 20027.

The product concerned is indeed covered by the scope of the safeguard investigation.
It should be noted, however, that it  is not subject to provisional safeguard measures.
Should, the Commission propose the adoption of any definitive safeguard measures in
respect of this product, it will also consider whether the combination of different types
of  measure  could  give  rise  to  a  higher  level  of  protection  than  is  necessary,  and
whether the anti-dumping duty should be amended accordingly. Interested parties will
be given an opportunity to comment on this issue.

7

OJ C 77, 28.3.2002, p. 39.

12

                                                
I. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

1. Injury elimination level

(63)

Some  exporters  have  argued  that  the  methodology  used  at  the  provisional  stage  for
establishing  the  non-injurious  prices  lead  to  artificially  inflated  prices.  It  was  thus
requested that the methodology be reviewed.

(64)

The  methodology  used  at  the  provisional  stage  to  establish  non-injurious  prices  per
model and per level of trade involved the following:

(cid:1)  to establish the break even point, the weighted average actual sales prices charged
by  each  Community  industry  company  was  adjusted  upward  or  downward
according to its actual loss or profits.

(cid:1)  to that break even point, a profit margin of 5% was added.

At the definitive stage, the methodology was reviewed and the non-injurious prices
per model and per level of trade were calculated as follows:

(cid:1)  to establish the break even point, the weighted average actual sales prices charged
by each Community industry company  was adjusted  downward  according  to the
Community industry’s average actual profit.

(cid:1)  to that break even point, a profit margin of 5% was added.

(65)

(66)

It  should  also  be  noted  that  by  using  the  profits  of  the  Community  industry  on  a
weighted  average  basis  as  was  done  at  the  definitive  stage,  the  situation  of  the
Community  industry  in  terms  of  prices,  profitability  and  quantities  involved  is  fully
reflected.

It  was  also  argued  that  the  reviewed  methodology  lead  for  certain  models  to
discrepancies  between  cost  of  production  and  non-injurious  prices.  In  this  respect  it
should  be  noted  that  as  the  non-injurious  prices  are  based  on  actual  prices  of  the
Community  industry  they  also  reflect  the  market  situation  of  each  model.
Consequently, this methodology allows a fair comparison of prices.

(67)

Furthermore,  the  correction  of  clerical  errors  made  in  the  context  of  the  price
undercutting calculations has been also applied to the injury margin calculation.

(68) Given the co-operation of only one Thai company at the definitive stage and the low
level  of  co-operation  for  Thailand  and  in  order  not  to  give  a  bonus  for  non  co-
operation,  according  to  Article  18(6)  of  the  Basic  Regulation,  the  residual  injury
margin for Thailand has been established on the basis of Eurostat information.

13

(69)

The revised injury elimination margins found were as follows:

Country

Company

Turkey

Czech Republic

Poland

Ukraine

Thailand

Yücel Boru Profil Endüstrisi A.S.
Cayrova Boru San Ve Tic A.S.
Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari A.S.
Mannesmann Boru Endustrisi A.S.
Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S.
Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S.
Non-sampled co-operating companies:
- Borutas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S.
- Cinar Boru Profil San. Tic. LTD.STI
- Guven Boru ve Profil Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti.
- Özdemir Boru Profil San.ve Ticaret A.S.
- Sevil Boru-Profil Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S.
- Toscelik Profil ve Sac. Endüstrisi A.S.
- Özborsan San.ve Ticaret A.S.
All other companies
Jäkl Karvina
Zelezarny Veseli a.s.
All other companies
Huta Buczek
All other companies
OJSC Nizhnedeneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant
All other companies
Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co. Ltd
All other companies

2. Definitive anti-dumping measures

Injury
margin
27.8%
27.8%
20.3%
20.3%
17.2%
10.9%

22.3%
22.3%
22.3%
22.3%
22.3%
22.3%
22.3%
27.8%
17.9%
52.6%
52.6%
0.0%
23.0%
56.2%
56.6%
33.8%
35.2%

(70)

(71)

(72)

It  was  argued  that  any  measure  should  not  exceed  the  difference  between  the  target
profit  margin  and  the  profit  obtained  by  the  Community  industry  during  the  IP.  The
target  profit  margin  of  5%  of  turnover  which  the  Community  industry  could  be
expected to obtain in the absence of injurious dumping was established in recital 199
of the Provisional Regulation.

It  should  be  noted  that  duties  are  imposed  for  each  co-operating  company  and  each
investigated  country  following  the  lesser  duty  rule.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  the
methodology used in  order  to  determine  the  non-injurious  prices  for  the  Community
industry reflects the found target profit of 5% but that it is the difference between the
actual  level  of  prices  charged  by  the  exporters  and  the  non-injurious  prices  of  the
Community  industry  which  determines  the  level  of  injury  found.  The  request  is
therefore rejected.

In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance  with  Article 9(4) of
the Basic Regulation, a definitive 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,
where these are lower.

14

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

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

Country

Company

Turkey

Czech Republic

Poland

Ukraine

Thailand

Yücel Boru Profil Endüstrisi A.S.
Cayrova Boru San Ve Tic A.S.
Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari A.S.
Mannesmann Boru Endustrisi A.S.
Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S.
Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S.
Non-sampled co-operating companies
- Borutas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S.
- Cinar Boru Profil San. Tic. LTD.STI
- Guven Boru ve Profil Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti.
- Özdemir Boru Profil San.ve Ticaret A.S.
- Sevil Boru-Profil Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S.
- Toscelik Profil ve Sac. Endüstrisi A.S.
- Özborsan San.ve Ticaret A.S.
All other companies
Jäkl Karvina
All other companies
Huta Buczek
All other companies
OJSC Nizhnedeneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant
All other companies
Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co. Ltd
All other companies

Level of
duty
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
5.0%
0.0%
6.0%

5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
6.0%
17.9%
52.6%
0.0%
23.0%
30.9%
44.1%
21.7%
35.2%

(74)

The  individual  company  anti-dumping  duty  rates  specified  in  this  Regulation  were
established  on  the  basis  of  the  findings  of  the  present  investigation.  Therefore,  they
reflect  the  situation  found  during  that  investigation  with  respect  to  these  companies.
These  duty  rates  (as  opposed  to  the  country-wide  duty  applicable  to  ‘all  other
companies’)  are  thus exclusively applicable to  imports of  products  originating  in  the
country  concerned  and  produced  by  the  companies  and  thus  by  the  specific  legal
entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically
mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address, including
entities  related  to  those  specifically  mentioned,  cannot  benefit  from  these  rates  and
shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.

15

(75) Any claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty
rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of
new  production  or  sales  entities)  should  be  addressed  to  the  Commission8  forthwith
with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company's activities
linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with e.g. that name change
or  that  change  in  the  production  and  sales  entities.  The  Commission,  if  appropriate,
will, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, amend the Regulation accordingly
by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.

3. Undertaking

(76)

Subsequent  to  the  imposition  of  provisional  measures,  a  number  of  exporting
producers,  namely  Jäkl  Karvina  and  Zelezarny  Veseli  in  the  Czech  Republic,  Saha
Thai in Thailand and Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari/Mannesmann Boru Endustrisi
in  Turkey,  offered  price  undertakings  in  accordance  with  Article  8(1)  of  the  Basic
Regulation.

(77)

In this respect, the Commission has noted that :

– 

– 

– 

The product concerned is a commodity product with a considerable volatility in
prices even in the very short term,  and therefore not very suitable  for a  fixed
price undertaking.

The  volatility  is  due  to  the  variation  in  prices  of  raw  materials,  namely  hot
rolled  coils  and  zinc,  which  constitute  major  but  variable  components  of  the
cost of production. This is also linked to currency exchanges rates, which are
stable within the Community except for the UK, Sweden and Denmark, but fast
changing  with  regard  to  the  USD,  the  currency  in  which  the  transactions  are
made, especially in Thailand and Turkey. A monthly revision of prices would
be necessary.

If  the  MIPs  (minimum  import  prices)  were  indexed  to  the  price  of  hot  rolled
coils  and  zinc,  different  indexing  formulae  would  have  to  be  established  by
sub-product  group,  since  the  energy  and  manpower  per  tonne  vary  between
sizes.  For  this  reason,  should  a  review  formula  system  be  implemented,  it
would  be  necessary  to  establish  between  3  and  4  sub-formulae  for  each
category of product according to the size range.

(78) Moreover, some of the  producers  who offered price undertakings  export a  variety of
steel products such as welded tubes, structural pipes, carbon steel tubes, square tubing,
rectangular  tubing,  etc.  which  are  only  partially  subject  to  the  anti-dumping
investigation. The risk of compensation in prices for the different products exported to
the same customers is therefore high. On a general basis, the Community industry also
claimed that undertakings, and thus minimum prices, would clearly not be appropriate
measures  with  regard  to  the  product  concerned  for  the  same  reasons.  In  light  of  the
above, these offers of price undertakings were rejected.

8

European Commission
Directorate-General Trade
Directorate B
B-1049 Brussels

16

                                                
4. Definitive collection of provisional duties

(79)

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the level of
the  injury  caused  to  the  Community  industry,  it  is  considered  necessary  that  the
amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty,  imposed  by  the
Provisional  Regulation,  i.e.  Regulation  (EC)  No  540/2002,  should  be  definitively
collected at the rate of the duty definitively imposed.

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.

2.

A  definitive  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  91,  7306  30  78  91),  and  originating  in  the  Czech
Republic, Poland, Thailand, Turkey and the Ukraine.

The  rate  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  the  net-at-Community-
frontier price, before duty, for the products described in paragraph 1 and produced by
the following companies shall be as follows:

Country

Company

Turkey

Yücel Boru Profil Endüstrisi A.S.
Cayrova Boru San Ve Tic A.S.
Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari A.S.
Mannesmann Boru Endustrisi A.S.
Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S.
Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S.
Non-sampled co-operating companies:
- Borutas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S.
- Cinar Boru Profil San. Tic. LTD.STI
- Guven Boru ve Profil Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti.
- Özdemir Boru Profil San.ve Ticaret A.S.
- Sevil Boru-Profil Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S.
- Toscelik Profil ve Sac. Endüstrisi A.S.
- Özborsan San.ve Ticaret A.S.
All other companies

Czech Republic Jäkl Karvina

Poland

Ukraine

Thailand

All other companies
Huta Buczek
All other companies
OJSC Nizhnedeneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant
All other companies
Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co. Ltd
All other companies

17

Rate of duty
(%)
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
5.0%
0.0%
6.0%

TARIC
additional code
A330
A331
A332
A333
A334
A335

5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
6.0%
17.9%
52.6%
0.0%
23.0%
30.9%
44.1%
21.7%
35.2%

A336
A337
A338
A339
A340
A341
A342
A999
A343
A999
A344
A999
A345
A999
A405
A999

3.

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

Article 2

The  amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  pursuant  to
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  540/2002  shall  be  definitively  collected  at  the  rate  of  the
duties  set  out  in  Article  1,  or  at  the  rate  of  the  provisional  duty  where  this  is  lower.  The
amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties shall be released.

Article 3

Where any Turkish party provides sufficient evidence to the Commission that it did not export
the  goods  described  in  Article  1(1)  during  the  IP,  that  it  is  not  related  to  any  exporter  or
producer  subject  to  the  measures  imposed  by  this  Regulation  and  that  it  has  exported  the
goods concerned after the IP, or that it has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation
to export a significant quantity to the Community, the Council, acting by simple majority on a
proposal submitted by the Commission, after consulting the Advisory Committee, may amend
Article  1(2)  in  order  to  attribute  to  that  party  the  duty  applicable  to  cooperating
producers/exporters not in the sample, i.e. 5.2%

Article 4

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

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

Done at Brussels,

For the Council
The President

18