Commission Regulation (EC) No 1274/2003 of 11 June 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 230/2001 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the Czech Republic, Russia, Thailand and Turkey and accepting undertakings offered by certain exporters in the Czech Republic and Turkey
Date: 2003-06-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Czechia, Russia, Thailand, Türkiye, anti-dumping duty, import, metals, non-flat product, originating product, steel

L 180/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.7.2003

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1274/2003

of 11 June 2003

amending Regulation (EC) No 230/2001 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on certain iron
or steel ropes and cables originating in the Czech Republic, Russia, Thailand and Turkey and
accepting undertakings offered by certain exporters in the Czech Republic and Turkey

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22
December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from
countries not members of the European Community (1), as last
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1972/2002 (2), and in parti-
cular Article 8 thereof,

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

A. PREVIOUS PROCEDURE

On 5 May 2000, an anti-dumping proceeding was
initiated by the Commission (3) on imports of certain
iron or steel ropes and cables (the product concerned)
originating, inter alia, in Turkey.

This proceeding ultimately resulted in a definitive anti-
dumping duty being imposed by Council Regulation
(EC) No 1601/2001 (4), as last amended by Regulation
(EC) No 2288/2002 (5), of 2 August 2001 in order to
eliminate the injurious effects of dumping.

In parallel,

Provisional measures had been imposed by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 230/2001 (6), as last amended by
Regulation (EC) No 2303/2002 (7).
the
Commission accepted,
inter alia, a price undertaking
from the Turkish exporting producer Has Celik ve Halat
San Tic AS (Has Celik) by Article 2(1) of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 230/2001. Imports of the product
concerned produced and directly exported to the
Community by Has Celik were exempted from the anti-
dumping duty by Article 2(2) of the same Regulation.
Exemption from the duty is, inter alia, conditional on the
presentation of a commercial
invoice accompanying
goods subject to an undertaking (commercial invoice) as
requested by Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 230/
2001 and containing at least the information specified
in the Annex to the same Regulation.

B. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE UNDERTAKING

(4)

The scope of the undertaking is limited to certain types
of the product concerned which are listed in an Annex
to the undertaking (product covered). Each product type
(PCN).
is

identified by a Product Control Number

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 305, 7.11.2002, p. 1.
(3) OJ C 127, 5.5.2000, p. 12.
(4) OJ L 211, 4.8.2001, p. 1.
(5) OJ L 348, 21.12.2002, p. 52.
(6) OJ L 34, 3.2.2001, p. 4.
(7) OJ L 348, 21.12.2002, p. 80.

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

Product types not falling into this scope are subject to
the payment of anti-dumping duties and no commercial
invoice must be issued for these goods.

the
In addition, Has Celik undertook to ensure that
prices of the product covered are not, on a weighted
average semesterly basis, per product type, sold below a
Minimum Import Price (MIP). Has Celik can make indivi-
dual export transactions within a certain threshold below
the MIP, as long as the weighted average sales price for
all transactions, on a semesterly basis, per product type,
is at or above the MIP.

An on-spot verification visit to Has Celik revealed that it
had included in the commercial invoices product types
not covered by the undertaking, either by indicating no
PCN at all or by indicating PCNs that were not listed in
the undertaking. As a result, imports of these products
into the Community unduly benefited from the exemp-
tion to the anti-dumping duty.

Furthermore,
the verification confirmed that sales of
certain product types covered by the undertaking had
been made, on a weighted average semesterly basis, at
prices below the corresponding MIPs.

In view of the findings set out in recitals 6 and 7 the
Commission concluded that a breach of the undertaking
has occurred.

Has Celik was informed of the essential facts and consid-
erations on the basis of which the Commission's accep-
tance of their undertaking would be withdrawn and of
the recommendation to impose definitive duties on
imports into the Community of the product concerned
It was also granted a period
manufactured by them.
within which to request a hearing. Has Celik presented
comments and requested a hearing which was granted
by the Commission services.

(10) Has Celik argued that it had not had the intention to
circumvent the provisions of the undertaking and that it
had informed its customers about the obligation to pay
anti-dumping duties for product types not covered by
the undertaking. In addition, it claimed that the quanti-
ties unduly benefiting from the exemption of the anti-
dumping duty were insignificant. Finally, regarding the
non-respect of the MIPs, Has Celik argued that it had
sold those products within the flexibility threshold.

18.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 180/35

(11)

The arguments presented by Has Celik did not, however,
alter the Commission's initial view that a breach of the
undertaking occurred. In this respect, it should be noted
that intention is not a decisive criterion for assessing
whether an undertaking has been breached or not. Also,
Has Celik admitted that its customers had not actually
paid the anti-dumping duties in respect of the product
types referred to in recital 4. Moreover, the argument
that the quantities were insignificant cannot be accepted:
bearing in mind that any breach of an undertaking can
be a sufficient ground for withdrawal of its acceptance
by the Commission.
in the present case, the
quantities were not insignificant and this aspect of the
breach should not be considered in isolation but taking
into account the fact that it is twofold. Concerning the
second feature of the breach, it is not correct that the
sales have been made within the flexibility threshold.
Indeed as explained in recital 5 above, whilst this flex-
ibility allows the selling of some quantities below the
MIP, this is limited to the overall average per half year of
such sales resulting in a price at or above the MIP. Here,
Has Celik was found not to have respected this MIP on a
weighted average semesterly basis for each product type.

Indeed,

(12)

Therefore, acceptance of the undertaking offered by Has
Celik should be withdrawn and definitive anti-dumping
duties imposed against it.

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The undertaking accepted from company Has Celik ve Halat
Sanayi Ticaret AS is hereby withdrawn.

Article 2

The table in Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 230/2001

1.
is replaced by the following table.

Country

Company

TARIC additional code

Czech Republic

ŽDB as

A216

Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 230/2001 is hereby

2.
replaced as follows:

‘Imports declared for release into free circulation under
TARIC additional code A216 shall be exempt from the
anti-dumping duties imposed by Article 1 if
they are
produced and directly exported (i.e. invoiced and shipped)
by the company mentioned in Article 2(1) to a company
acting as an importer in the Community. Such imports
invoice
shall also be accompanied by a commercial
containing at least the elements listed in the Annex.’

Article 3

(13)

In view of the above, the table in Article 2 of Regulation
(EC) No 230/2001 should be amended accordingly,

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

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

Done at Brussels, 11 June 2003.

For the Commission

Pascal LAMY

Member of the Commission