Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People's Republic of China
Date: 2011-11-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, steel, tube

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 21.11.2011 
COM(2011) 775 final 

2011/0355 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in 
the People's Republic of China 

 
 
  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This proposal concerns the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 
30  November  2009  on  protection  against  dumped  imports  from  countries  not 
members  of  the  European  Community  ('the  basic  Regulation')  in  the  proceeding 
concerning imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating 
in the People's Republic of China. 

•  General context 

This proposal is made in the context of the implementation of the basic Regulation 
and is the result of an investigation which was carried out in line with the substantive 
and procedural requirements laid out in the basic Regulation. 

•  Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

Provisional  measures  are  in  force  and  were  imposed  by  Commission  Regulation 
(EU)  No  627/2011  of  27  June  2011  imposing  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on 
imports  of  certain  seamless  pipes  and  tubes  of  stainless  steel  originating  in  the 
People's Republic of China. 

•  Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2. 

CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

•  Consultation of interested parties 

Interested  parties  concerned  by  the  proceeding  have  had  the  possibility  to  defend 
their  interests  during  the  investigation,  in  line  with  the  provisions  of  the  basic 
Regulation. 

•  Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

•  Impact assessment 

This proposal is the result of the implementation of the basic Regulation. 

The basic Regulation does not contain provisions for a general impact assessment but 
contains an exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed. 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

On  30  September  2010  the  Commission  initiated  an  anti-dumping  proceeding 
concerning  imports  of  seamless  pipes  and  tubes  of  stainless  steel  originating  in  the 
People's Republic of China. 

The  Commission  imposed  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  on  these  imports  by 
Regulation (EU) No 627/2011 of 27 June 2011. 

The  attached  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  is  based  on  the  definitive  findings 
which have confirmed the existence of dumping causing injury, and the fact that the 
imposition  of  measures  is  not  against  the  overall  Union  interest.  All  provisional 
findings were in general confirmed. A minor correction in the calculations resulted in 
very  limited  changes  (of  less  than  1  percentage  point)  in  the  dumping  and  injury 
margins and thus in the duty levels. 

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation 
which should be published no later than 29 December 2011. 

•  Legal basis 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against 
dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. 

•  Subsidiarity principle 

The  proposal  falls  under  the  exclusive  competence  of  the  European  Union.  The 
subsidiarity principle therefore does not apply. 

•  Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reasons: 

The form of action is described in the above-mentioned basic Regulation and leaves 
no scope for national decision. 

Indication  of  how  financial  and  administrative  burden  falling  upon  the  Union, 
national governments, regional and local authorities, economic operators and citizens 
is minimized and proportionate to the objective of the proposal is not applicable. 

•  Choice of instruments 

Proposed instrument: regulation. 

Other means would not be adequate because the basic Regulation does not provide 
for alternative options. 

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Union budget. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
2011/0355 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in 
the People's Republic of China 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,  

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community1 ('the basic 
Regulation') and in particular Article 9 thereof, 

Having  regard  to  the  proposal  submitted  by  the  European  Commission  ('the  Commission') 
after having consulted the Advisory Committee, 

Whereas: 

A. 

PROVISIONAL MEASURES 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

The  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  627/20112  ('the  provisional  Regulation') 
imposed  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  certain  seamless  pipes  and 
tubes of stainless steel originating in the People's Republic of China ('PRC'). 

The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 16 August 2010 ('the 
complaint') by the Defence Committee of the Seamless Stainless Steel Tubes Industry 
of the  European  Union ('the Defence Committee') on behalf of two groups of Union 
producers ('the complainants') representing a major proportion, in this case more than 
50  %  of  the  total  Union  production  of  certain  seamless  pipes  and  tubes  of  stainless 
steel. 

It  is  recalled  that,  as  set  out  in  recital  (14)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the 
investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 
2010  ('the  investigation  period'  or  'IP').  The  examination  of  trends  relevant  for  the 
assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the IP ('the 
period considered').  

1 
2 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 
OJ L 169, 29.6.2011, p. 1. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
B. 

SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 

(4) 

Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of 
which it was decided to impose provisional measures ('provisional disclosure'), several 
interested  parties  made  written  submissions  making  known  their  views  on  the 
provisional findings. The parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be 
heard.  The  Commission  continued  to  seek  information  it  deemed  necessary  for  its 
definitive findings.  

Individual examination 

(5)  With  regard  to  the  three  claims  for  individual  examination,  it  has  been  definitively 
decided that they could not be granted as they would render the investigation unduly 
burdensome and would prevent the completion of the investigation in good time. As 
stated  in  recital  (6)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  Commission  had  selected  a 
representative sample, covering 25 % of the total imports recorded in Eurostat during 
the  IP  and  over  38  %  of  the  total  volume  of  the  cooperating  exporters  in  the  IP.  As 
indicated  in  recital  (13)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  two  of  the  three  sampled 
exporting  producers  constitute  large  groups.  The  size  of  the  groups  amounted  to  a 
particular burden for the present investigation in terms of both the investigative effort 
as  well  as  analysis.  In  these  circumstances,  it  was  not  possible  to  accommodate  the 
claims for individual examination from additional exporting producers.  

C.  PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

1. 

Product concerned 

(6) 

It is recalled that, as set out in recital (15) of the provisional Regulation, the product 
concerned  is  seamless  pipes  and  tubes  of  stainless  steel  (excluding  such  pipes  and 
tubes  with  attached  fittings  suitable  for  conducting  gases  or  liquids  for  use  in  civil 
aircraft),  originating  in  the  PRC,  currently  falling  within  CN  codes  7304  11  00, 
7304 22 00, 7304 24 00, ex 7304 41 00, 7304 49 10, ex 7304 49 93, ex 7304 49 95, 
ex 7304 49 99 and ex 7304 90 00 ('the product concerned'). 

(7) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comment  with  regard  to  the  product  concerned  following 
provisional  disclosure,  recitals  (15)  to  (19)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed. 

2. 

Like product  

(8) 

In  the  absence  of  any  comment,  recital  (20)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  is  hereby 
confirmed.  

D.  DUMPING 

1.  Market economy treatment 

(9) 

Following provisional disclosure, some parties contested some of the findings related 
to  the  MET  determination  as  set  out  in  recitals  (21)  to  (43)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
(10)  One  party  claimed  that  the  Commission  did  not  disclose  the  price  difference  of  raw 
materials between the EU and the Chinese market. In this respect, it has to be noted 
that  both  the  MET  disclosure,  as  well  as  the  provisional  Regulation,  disclose  the 
nominal price difference between the EU, USA and Chinese prices of raw materials. 
As stated in recital (27) of the provisional Regulation this difference, on average and 
depending  on  the  steel  grade,  amounts  to  around  30  %.  As  far  the  sources  of 
information that formed the basis for this comparison are concerned, the Commission 
used  data  available  from  cooperating  EU  producers  and  exporting  producers  in  the 
PRC. These data have been cross-checked with some publicly available sources3.  

(11) 

It was further claimed that the Commission conducted no comparison of prices of iron 
ore imported into the PRC and international market prices. A related claim was that no 
data  have  been  provided  concerning  the  impact  of  iron  ore  on  the  cost  of  the  raw 
material  (billet,  ingot,  round  bars)  purchased  by  the  producers  of  the  product 
concerned. The reference to iron ore in recital (28) of the provisional Regulation was 
made in the context of comparative advantage to analyse a possible explanation for the 
low prices of billets, ingots and round bars in the PRC. Iron ore as well as nickel and 
chromium are main cost drivers in the production of stainless steel billets, ingots and 
round bars. But, due to the fact that the prices of iron ore, nickel and chromium are in 
general  based  on  international  market  prices,  their  impact  on  the  price  difference 
between  EU  and  Chinese  billets,  ingots  and  round  bars  and  finally  on  stainless 
seamless  pipes  and  tubes  can  only  be  limited. Therefore,  the  findings  that  led  to  the 
rejection of criterion 1 of the MET claim were not based on iron ore prices but on the 
price difference between the raw materials, i.e. billets, ingots and round bars, directly 
used in the production of the product concerned; this price difference combined with 
the established State interference (export tax and no VAT refund) led to the conclusion 
that it has not been shown that criterion 1 for granting MET was fulfilled. 

(12)  One  party  reiterated  on  several  occasions  the  same  claim  related  to  the  procedural 
aspects  of  MET  determination.  The  claim  related  to  consultations  with  the  Advisory 
Committee of Member States, namely the information transmitted to that committee in 
the course of the current investigation. The issue has been explained in two letters sent 
to the party and it was subject to several exchanges with the Hearing Officer. In this 
respect  it  has  to  be  noted  that  pursuant  to  Article  19(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation 
exchanges of information relating to consultations made with the Advisory Committee 
of Member States shall not be divulged except as specifically provided for in the basic 
Regulation.  Consequently,  the  provisions  in  force  do  not  allow  granting  parties  any 
access to the exchanges between the Commission and the Member States.  

(13)  The  same party made certain  claims related  mainly to the  issue of  distortions  on  the 
market of raw materials. It was claimed that the stainless steel billets purchased on the 
Chinese  domestic  market  accounted  for  a  portion  only  of  the  purchases  of  raw 
materials during the IP. In this regard, it is noted first and foremost that Article 2(7)(c) 
of the basic Regulation does not establish any threshold with regard to the proportion 
of  raw  materials  purchases  that  would  have  to  be  affected  by  distortions.  Article 
2(7)(c)  of  the  basic  Regulation  stipulates  that  costs  of  major  inputs  have  to 
substantially  reflect  market  values.  Most  importantly,  however,  the  Commission 
explained  that  the  distortions  on  the  raw  material  market  in  the  PRC  concerned  the 

3 

inter alia, www.meps.co.uk. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
main raw materials used in the production of seamless stainless steel pipes and tubes 
and  not  only  billets.  The  main  raw  materials  used  in  the  production  of  seamless 
stainless steel pipes and tubes are stainless steel billets, ingots and round bars which 
represent more than 50 % of the cost of production of the product concerned. Those 
raw  materials  collectively  fall  under  HS  Code  7218  10  (ingots  and  other  primary 
forms of stainless steel). They are all subject to a 15 % export tax and are not subject 
to any refund of the 17 % VAT when exported. It is in this regard that distortions have 
been established leading to the conclusion that criterion 1 of the MET evaluation was 
not  met  by  any  of  the  sampled  Chinese  exporting  producers.  For  the  company 
concerned,  the  raw  materials  used  for  the  production  of  the  product  concerned 
purchased  on  the  Chinese  domestic  market  account  for  a  substantial  part  –  around 
30 % of purchases. It should be noted in addition that another major part is imported 
from  related  companies.  When  focussing  specifically  on  purchases  from  unrelated 
suppliers, even 56% have been purchased domestically. Consequently, contrary to the 
party's claim, there was no misrepresentation of facts as far as the MET determination 
was  concerned,  neither  in  the  communication  with  that  party  nor  in  the  consultation 
process  with  the  Advisory  Committee,  which  was  informed  about  all  the  arguments 
submitted. Consequently, the claim has to be rejected. 

(14)  One  company  claimed  that  the  decision  to  deny  MET  should  be  individual  and 
company  specific  whereas  in  the  present  case  the  institutions  extended  the  general 
findings  at  the  country  level  to  individual  producers.  This  argument  cannot  be 
accepted; indeed the analysis made by the institutions has been made individually for 
each sampled producer. It is true that the institutions have reached the same conclusion 
for  the  three  of  them  but  this  is  due  to  the  fact  that  there  is  State  interference  in  the 
decision making process of each of them, as explained in the provisional Regulation. 

(15)  Having  regard  to  the  above,  the  finding  that  all  MET  claims  should  be  denied,  as 
established in recitals (21) to (43) of the provisional Regulation, is hereby confirmed.  

2.  Normal value 

(a)  Analogue country 

(16)  One party claimed that the USA should have been used as an analogue country. In this 
respect  it  has  to  be  noted  that  the  grounds  for  the  decision  not  to  use  USA  as  an 
analogue  country  have  been  thoroughly  laid  down  in  recitals  (46)  to  (48)  of  the 
provisional Regulation. In view of the fact that the party did not substantiate its claim 
and  did  not  provide  any  additional  arguments  which  could  alter  the  findings  with 
regard to the USA as a possible analogue country, the claim has to be rejected. 

(17)  At the same time it has to be stressed that the Commission continued efforts to obtain 
cooperation  from  an  appropriate  analogue  country.  Further  to  efforts  referred  to  in 
recital  (47)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  the  Commission  contacted  producers  in 
Brazil,  Canada,  Malaysia,  Mexico,  South  Africa,  South  Korea,  Taiwan  and  Ukraine. 
Altogether 46 companies have been contacted, but no cooperation could be obtained.  

(18)  Having regard to the above, the provisional conclusion that the normal value should be 
based  on  prices  actually  paid  or  payable  in  the  Union  for  the  like  product,  duly 
adjusted  if  necessary  to  include  a  reasonable  profit,  as  set  out  in  recital  (51)  of  the 
provisional Regulation, is hereby confirmed.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
(b)  Determination of normal value 

(19)  As  detailed  in  recitals  (49)  to  (51)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  the  normal  value  is 
based  on  prices  actually  paid  or  payable  in  the  Union  for  the  like  product,  duly 
adjusted if necessary to include a reasonable profit, of the closest resembling product 
types having the same diameter, steel grade and product type (e.g. cold or hot drawn). 

(20)  Parties' comments relating to prices actually paid or payable in the Union and well as 
those concerning adjustments (such as level of trade and quality perception) have been 
addressed in recitals (45) and (46) below. 

(21)  One  company  claimed  that  the  normal  value  could  be  constructed  on  the  basis  of 
import prices of the stainless steel hollows into the US from the EU or into the EU by 
the  EU  producers.  This  claim  has  not  been  further  substantiated.  The  company 
presented no arguments with regard to how such construction would be better suited 
for  the  determination  of  the  normal  value  than  the  method  used  in  the  provisional 
Regulation. In particular it has not been substantiated why it would be more suitable to 
construct normal value on the basis of prices of hollows rather than basing it on prices 
of the Union industry for the like product.  

(22)  Furthermore,  it  has  not  been  substantiated  why  the  EU  exports  to  the  US  should  be 
considered. This alternative appears not suitable in particular in view of the fact that 
all  cooperating  US  producers  rely  on  imports  from  their  EU  parent  companies  as 
already  mentioned  in  recital  (48)  of  the  provisional  Regulation.  Further,  the  high 
processing cost in the USA as stated in recital (48) of the provisional Regulation – the 
very  reason  why  USA  has  been  considered  inappropriate  as  an  analogue  country  – 
would make the method suggested not suitable.  

(23)  As far as exports from the US to the EU are concerned, this question has been dealt 
with explicitly in recital (49) of the provisional Regulation. It was considered that the 
US export prices would be tainted by the high production costs and that the volumes 
of such exports were very limited.  

(24)  The same company proposed to construct the normal value on the basis of the actual 
import  prices  of  the  stainless  steel  hollows  by  EU  producers.  However,  the  EU 
producer  importing  hollows  from  India  into  the  EU,  as  mentioned  in  the  complaint, 
does  not  cooperate  in  the  current  investigation.  Neither  do  any  of  the  sampled  EU 
producers import hollows from any country outside the EU. Therefore, the proposed 
methodology cannot be used. 

(25)  Having  regard  to  the  above,  the  determination  of  normal  value  as  set  out  in  recitals 

(49) to (51) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed. 

3. 

Export price 

(26)  One  party  reiterated  its  claim  that  the  date  of  order  rather than  the  date  of  invoicing 
should be considered as being the date of sale to ensure a fair comparison. This claim 
has been made with reference to Article 2(10)(j) of the basic Regulation. As already 
explained to the party concerned during the hearing with the Hearing Officer held on 
11 March 2011, the provision in question specifically refers to currency conversions, 
i.e.  exchange  rates  applicable  when  the  price  comparison  requires  a  conversion  of 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
currencies.  Consequently,  the  reference  to  the  dates  of  purchase  orders  concerns 
currency  conversions  in  the  framework  of  fair  comparison  between  export  price  and 
normal value and does not relate to the turnover and the volume of export sales to the 
EU during the IP.  

(27) 

In  all  cases  the  product  concerned  was  exported  to  independent  customers  in  the 
Union and, therefore, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) 
of the basic Regulation, namely on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable. 
Therefore, recital (52) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.  

4.  Comparison 

(28)  As  stated  in  recital  (20)  above,  the  parties'  comments  relating  to  the  prices  actually 
paid or payable in the Union as well as those concerning adjustments (such as level of 
trade and quality perception) have been addressed in recitals (45) and (46) below. 

(29)  One party contested the method of comparing the export price and normal value based 
on three specific parameters (diameter, steel grade and product type (e.g. cold or hot 
drawn). The party claimed that comparisons should have been conducted at the level 
of  greater  detail,  i.e.  taking  into  other  parameters  as  well,  notably  wall  thickness, 
length and testing.  

(30)  The  Commission  services  indeed  collected  information  in  relation  to  a  number  of 

parameters including the length, wall thickness and testing.  

(31)  According  to  Article  2(11)  of  the  basic Regulation,  the  dumping  margin  is  normally 
established  on  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of  weighted  average  normal  value  with  a 
weighted  average  of  prices  of  all  export  transactions.  Article  2(11)  of  the  basic 
Regulation  requires  that  dumping  calculations  should  be  based  on  ‘all  export 
transactions to the Community’ but they should be ‘subject to the relevant provisions 
governing  fair  comparison’.  The  company  referred  to  the  so-called  product  control 
number and the parameters contained therein. In this regard, it has to be noted that the 
product  control  number  is  a  tool  used  in  the  investigation  in  order  to  structure  and 
organize the substantial amounts of very detailed data submitted by the companies. It 
is an aid to conduct a more detailed analysis of different product characteristics within 
the category of the product concerned and the like product. The comparison was based 
on the most pertinent characteristics in order to ensure a fair comparison.  

(32)  Following  the  company's  claim,  the  Commission  explained  in  a  letter  that  the  wall 
thickness  of  a  pipe  was  proportionally  linked  to  its  weight  and  was  thus  indirectly 
covered by the comparison. Other characteristics, such as testing, have minor effects 
on the comparison. For example, nearly all products concerned are subject to standard 
test applications.  

(33) 

It  has  to  be  stressed  that,  contrary  to  that  party's  claims,  the  Commission  did  not 
disregard any information. However, it is not uncommon that certain parameters used 
in the product control number have a lesser weight and that specific parameters more 
then  others  form  a  better  basis  for  fair  comparison.  No  pipes  have  been  disregarded 
from the comparison on the basis of physical differences or for any other reasons nor 
have any new product types been created. On the contrary, all sales were included in 
the comparison, regardless of the diameter or length of the pipe.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
(34)  The company further submitted that the approach used by the Commission prevented 
it from making a claim for adjustments for physical characteristics. This claim, again, 
has been based on the fact that the Commission conducted the comparison on the basis 
of three parameters and not more and has already been addressed above in recitals (31) 
et seq.  

(35)  As far as the procedural angle of the issue of comparison is concerned, also raised by 
the same party, it has to be noted that the company had full opportunity to comment on 
the calculations performed in its individual case. Full details of those calculations have 
been disclosed on the day of publication of the provisional Regulation. The company 
commented on the issue of parameters used in comparison in a letter of 11 July 2011 
requesting  further  clarifications.  A  reply  has  been  provided  by  the  Commission 
services  on  19  July  2011.  The  company  then  reiterated  its  arguments  in  a  letter  of 
29 July  2011.  While  the  company  disagreed  with  the  basis  for  comparison,  it 
repeatedly claimed that parameters like wall thickness, length or testing had an impact 
on prices. As stated above, the Commission acknowledges that those parameters had 
some impact on prices. However, it was found more appropriate, that the calculations 
should be based on  3  most  important parameters as this leads to the highest level of 
matching and at the same time to the possibility to find matching sales for all export 
transactions.  

(36)  The  company  claimed  that  it  was  prevented  from  presenting  claims  for  adjustment. 
This  argument  has  to  be  rejected.  The  opportunities  to  present  claims  existed 
throughout  the  course  of  the  proceeding,  not  least  at  the  time  of  disclosure  of 
provisional  findings  when  the  company  became  fully  aware  of  all  the  details  of  the 
calculations.  

(37)  One  party  claimed  that  applying  production  costs  of  smaller  diameters  to  the  larger 
ones did not reflect the actual costs, because the costs for larger diameter were much 
higher.  However,  the  party  did  not  provide  any  alternative  nor  did  it  substantiate  its 
claim. Consequently, in view of the fact that no alternative method has been presented, 
the method used is considered to be the most reasonable.  

(38)  One company claimed that the number of adjustments (the fact that the Commission 
used  three  parameters  and  not  more,  the  quality  perception  and  level  of  trade 
adjustments) suggest that the products of the EU producers are hardly comparable to 
the  imported  Chinese  products.  In  this  regard  it  is  noted  that  the  mere  fact  that  the 
institutions perform adjustments is an inherent part of any dumping calculation. Those 
adjustments are foreseen in the basic Regulation and therefore as such do not call into 
question the comparability between product concerned and the like product. In fact the 
high matching ratio confirms that the product concerned and the like product are fully 
comparable. 

(39)  Having  regard  to  the  above,  the  findings  in  recitals  (53)  and  (54)  of  the  provisional 

Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5.  Dumping margins 

(40)  One  party  claimed  that  due  to  a  high  fluctuation  of  the  nickel  price,  the  dumping 
margin should have been calculated on a quarterly basis. In this respect it is noted that 
in  the  present  case  the  comparison  between  export  price  and  normal  value  is  not  a 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
comparison between prices and costs, but only between weighted average sales prices 
(normal  value  was  established  on  the  basis  of  the  sales  prices  of  EU  industry). 
Furthermore, the increase in nickel prices was an increase in world market prices and 
therefore was not an isolated Chinese phenomenon. The increase affected at most three 
months of the IP, while the sales of the product concerned took place throughout the 
full  IP.  Furthermore,  changes  in  raw  material  prices  must  be  considered  as  a  normal 
part of the business operations. The increasing nickel prices should be affecting both 
the  EU  and  Chinese  producers  equally,  as  nickel  is  quoted  on  the  London  Metal 
Exchange. Any differences would be due to the distortion on raw material prices in the 
PRC and should therefore not be taken into account in the calculation. Consequently, 
the  claim  has  to  be  rejected  and  comparison  based  on  the  annual  average  Chinese 
export  prices  with  annual  average  EU  prices,  duly  adjusted  to  include  a  reasonable 
profit margin. This claim was therefore rejected. 

(41)  One Chinese producer made a substantiated claim that the computation of adjustments 
in  its  individual  dumping  calculation  was  inaccurate.  The  Commission  accepted  this 
claim  and  performed  a  new  calculation,  which  resulted  in  a  dumping  margin  of 
83,7 %. Apart from this change the findings in recitals (55) to (61) of the provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. The revised dumping margins are as follows:  

Definitive 
dumping margins 

Changshu Walsin Specialty Steel, Co. Ltd., Haiyu  

Shanghai Jinchang Stainless Steel Tube Manufacturing, Co. Ltd., 
Situan  

Wenzhou Jiangnan Steel Pipe Manufacturing, Co. Ltd., 
Yongzhong 

Sample weighted average for the cooperating exporting producers 
not included in the sample and listed in Annex I 

All other companies 

83,7 % 

62,6 % 

67,1 % 

71,5 % 

83,7 % 

E. 

INJURY 

1.  Union industry 

(42)  With  regard  to  the  definition  of  the  Union  industry  and  the  representativity  of  the 
sample  of  Union  producers,  no  claims  have  been  received  following  provisional 
disclosure. Therefore, recitals (62) and (63) of the provisional Regulation are hereby 
confirmed. 

2.  Union consumption 

(43) 

In respect of the Union consumption, no claims have been received. Therefore, recitals 
(64) to (66) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
3. 

Imports from the country concerned 

(44)  Concerning  the  provisional  findings  relating  to  volume,  market  share  and  price 
evolution of dumped imports, no claims have been submitted by the interested parties. 
Therefore, recitals (67) to (69) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

Price undercutting 

(45)  With regard to the calculation of price undercutting by imports from the PRC, both the 
Chinese  exporting  producers  and  the  Union  industry  requested  further  information 
concerning  the  method  of  determining  certain  adjustments  (such  as  post  importation 
costs,  level  of  trade  and  market  perception  of  quality)  that  had  been  applied  in  the 
calculation.  The  Commission  accommodated  these  requests  by  disclosing  how  those 
adjustments  were  determined  while  at  the  same  time  ensuring  compliance  with  the 
rules of confidentiality.  

(46)  Following the comments of a Chinese producer, a minor correction was made in the 
calculation  of  price  undercutting,  as  in  the  provisional  calculation  the  level  of  trade 
adjustment included also a part of post importation costs which had at the same time 
been  covered  by  a  separate  adjustment  for  all  post  importation  costs.  The  correction 
resulted in a change of less than one percentage point in the undercutting margins and 
injury  elimination  level  (for  the  revision  of  the  injury  elimination  level  see  recitals 
(82) and (83) below) in comparison to the provisional stage.  

(47)  Apart from the changes mentioned above and in the absence of any comments, recitals 

(70) and (71) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

4. 

Economic situation of the Union industry 

(48)  Following  provisional  disclosure,  some  Chinese  exporting  producers  claimed  that 
certain  indicators  should  be  excluded  from  the  injury  analysis.  Notably,  they  stated 
that production and capacity utilisation fell at the same rate as did Union consumption, 
alleging that for this reason those indicators should not be considered as factors in the 
material injury analysis. A similar claim was made with regard to the drop in Union 
sales  which  allegedly  occurred  also  at  a  rate  comparable  to  the  reduction  of 
consumption.  

(49) 

In  this  context  it  should  first  be  noted  that  according  to  Article  3(5)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  "all  economic  factors  and  indices  having  a  bearing  on  the  state  of  the 
industry" should be examined in an injury analysis. As regards the potential effects of 
any other factors than dumped imports that may have contributed to the injury, those 
are addressed under Chapter F. Causation, in particular under the point concerning the 
effects of any other factors (see recitals (59) to (69) below). 

(50) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments,  recitals  (72)  to  (89)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

5.  Conclusion on injury 

(51) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments,  recitals  (90)  to  (92)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
F. 

CAUSATION 

1. 

Effects of the dumped imports and of the economic downturn  

(52)  Some  parties  reiterated  their  claims  submitted  during  the  provisional  stage  that  a 
substantial  part  of  the  material  injury  experienced  by  the  Union  industry  should  be 
attributed to factors other than dumped imports.  

(53) 

In  this  context,  following  the  provisional  disclosure,  some  Chinese  exporting 
producers alleged in particular that a substantial part of the loss of sales volume and 
market share was due to falling demand resulting from the economic crisis rather than 
to dumped imports from the PRC. They further alleged that the comparable decrease 
in  the  prices  of  Chinese  imports  and  of  the  Union  industry  during  the  period 
considered (by 9 % and 8 %, respectively) also indicated that the falling prices of the 
Union industry was purely due to the reduced market demand rather than to the effect 
of dumped imports.  

(54)  Firstly,  it  should  be  noted  that  it  is  recognised  in  recitals  (103)  to  (106)  of  the 
provisional  Regulation  that  the  economic  downturn  and  the  resulting  contraction  in 
demand had a negative effect on the state of the Union industry and that, as such, may 
have contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry. However, this does not 
diminish  the  injurious  effect  of  the  low  priced  and  dumped  Chinese  imports  which 
have  considerably  increased  their  share  in  the  Union  market  during  the  period 
considered. 

(55)  As  explained  in  recitals  (104)  and  (105)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  effect  of 
dumped imports is actually much more detrimental in a period of falling demand than 
during  years  of  rapid  growth.  Chinese  imports  appear  to  have  continuously  undercut 
the  Union  prices  throughout  the  period  considered.  In  addition,  in  the  IP  the  price 
undercutting  was  in  the  range  of  between  21  %  and  32  %,  and  Chinese  imports 
represented more than 18 % of the Union market share, as a result of a substantial gain 
of 7,9 percentage points over the period considered. Therefore, while Chinese imports 
exerted an evident price pressure that prevented the Union industry from setting cost-
covering (not to mention profitable prices), at the same time the increased volume and 
market share of those imports also made it impossible for the Union industry to aim at 
higher volumes of production, capacity utilisation and sales, particularly with regard to 
more commodity-type products mainly sold via distributors.  

(56)  Secondly, drawing conclusions solely based on selected injury indicators such as sales 
volume and market share, or sales prices only, would distort the analysis in this case. 
For  instance,  the  losses  in  sales  volume  and  market  share  were  combined  inter  alia 
with  severe  profitability  deterioration  and  were  due,  to  a  large  extent,  to  the  price 
pressure  from  the  dumped  imports.  As  concerns  specifically  the  question  of  market 
share, the Union industry lost 3,6 percentage points to the Chinese imports during the 
period considered. Finally, again in view of the rate of undercutting and the increase of 
Chinese  imports  in  both  relative  and  absolute  terms,  by  no  means  can  be  concluded 
that the reduction of the prices of Union producers was unrelated to the price levels of 
the dumped imports. 

(57) 

In  the  light  of  the  above,  the  causal  link  between  dumped  imports  and  the  material 
injury  found  is  herewith  confirmed  on  the  basis  of  the  combined  existence  of 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
substantial  volume  and  price  pressure  exerted  by  the  Chinese  imports  on  the  Union 
industry. 

(58) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments,  recitals  (94)  to  (96)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Effects of any other factors 

(59)  With  regard  to  the  effect  of  other  third  country  imports  to  the  Union,  some  Chinese 
exporting producers claimed that 1,0 of the 3,6 percentage points of market share loss 
of  the  Union  industry  should  have  been  attributed  to  imports  from  Japan  and  India. 
However, as a matter of fact the Chinese imports gained market share at the expenses 
of both other imports and the Union industry. The increase of Chinese market share of 
7,9  percentage  points  can  be  divided  into  the  3,6  percentage  points  loss  of  Union 
industry  market  share  and  the  4,3  percentage  points  loss  of  market  share  of  other 
imports.  

(60)  The  same  Chinese  exporting  producers  stated  that  the  average  prices  of  imports  of 
some  selected  other  third  countries,  notably  Ukraine,  India  and  the  USA,  had  also 
seriously  decreased  which  could  have  caused  injury  to  the  Union  industry.  In  this 
regard it is noted, however, that overall, the average price of imports from all countries 
other than the PRC have actually increased by 34 % during the period considered. As 
already stated in recital (100) of the provisional Regulation, the average import price 
from  the  USA  had  largely  exceeded  the  prices  on  the  Union  market.  As  also 
emphasised  in  that  same  recital,  the  market  share  of  imports  from  Ukraine  lessened 
while the American and Indian market shares remained basically stable. Nevertheless, 
on  the  basis  of  Eurostat  data  on  those  imports,  it  cannot  be  concluded  that  imports 
from other third countries would have played a significant role in the deterioration of 
the state of the Union industry, thereby breaking the causal link established between 
the dumped Chinese imports and the injury. 

(61) 

In the absence of any other comments regarding the findings set out in recitals (97) to 
(102) of the provisional Regulation, those findings are hereby confirmed. 

(62)  As  concerns  the  effect  of  the  economic  downturn,  the  reasons  why  the  economic 
downturn  cannot  be  considered  an  element  to  break  the  causal  link  are  analysed  in 
recitals (52) to (58) above. As none of the submitted comments indicated the opposite, 
the findings set out in recitals (103) to (106) of the provisional Regulation are hereby 
maintained. 

(63)  As for the export performance of the Union industry, in the absence of any comments 
regarding the findings in recitals (107) and (108) of the provisional Regulation, those 
findings are hereby confirmed. 

(64)  A number of Chinese exporting producers claimed that the 18 % increase in the unit 
cost  of  production  described  in  recital  (109)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  played  an 
important role in the deterioration of the profitability of the Union industry rather than 
dumped imports, and requested a more detailed analysis of the effect of that unit cost 
increase.  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
(65)  The  Commission  examined  the  issue  and  found  that  the  increase  in  the  unit  cost  of 
production can be attributed to: higher manufacturing  costs as a result of higher raw 
material  prices,  as  well  as  to  fixed  costs  such  as  direct  labour,  depreciation, 
manufacturing overheads and SG&A costs, and also to the rapid drop in production. 

(66)  Given that the raw material cost fluctuation is to a large extent covered by the price 
setting mechanism of the Union industry – the so-called "alloy surcharge" mechanism 
directly  links  prices  to  the  quotation  of  the  most  important  raw  materials  such  as 
nickel, molybdenum and chromium – its impact on the profitability is unlikely to be 
significant.  However,  the  other  elements,  related  to  the  insufficient  production  and 
sales  volumes,  had  a  direct  effect  on  the  profitability  levels.  As  the  production  and 
sales  volumes  of  the  Union  industry  would  have  been  significantly  higher  in  the 
absence of dumped imports, it cannot be concluded that the increase in the unit cost of 
production in itself is a major factor leading to the injury rather than dumped imports, 
as it is inextricably linked to the augmented volume of dumped imports. 

(67)  Some Chinese exporting producers also submitted that the Union industry's failure to 
restructure despite the falling consumption may have been an important factor leading 
to the injury established. 

(68) 

In this respect it should first be noted that the Union industry had to cope with not only 
the effect of falling consumption in itself but with the impact of dumped imports in a 
period  of  falling  consumption.  Nonetheless,  the  investigation  has  shown  that  the 
Union  industry  (i)  maintained  its  production  capacity  in  the  expectation  of  the 
temporary nature of the crisis and of a forthcoming recovery, and cannot be expected 
to  adapt  capacity  because  of  the  increasing  volumes  of  Chinese  imports  made  at 
abnormally  low,  dumped  prices,  (ii)  continuously  developed  its  product  mix  with  a 
focus  on  higher  value  specialised  products  where  Chinese  competition  is  less 
prominent and (iii) reduced its workforce by 8 % and cut the average labour cost per 
employee by 2 % in the period considered (if these reductions are viewed only in the 
crisis  period,  i.e.  between  2008  and  the  IP,  they  amount  to  as  much  as  19  and 
11 percentage  points,  respectively).  All  these  elements  show  that  the  Union  industry 
was  very  active  in  taking  measures  in  an  attempt  to  respond  to  the  negative  effects 
deriving from the injury suffered. However, the above steps proved to be insufficient 
to counteract the injurious effects of dumped imports in a period of weak demand.  

(69) 

In  the  absence  of  any  other  comments,  recitals  (109)  and  (110)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3.  Conclusion on causation 

(70)  None of the arguments submitted by the interested parties demonstrates that the impact 
of factors other than dumped imports from the PRC is such as to break the causal link 
between  the  dumped  imports  and  the  material  injury  established.  In  the  light  of  the 
foregoing  it  is  concluded  that  the  dumped  imports  from  the  PRC  caused  material 
injury  to  the  Union  industry  within  the  meaning  of  Article  3(6)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  

(71)  Therefore the conclusions on causation in the provisional Regulation, as summarised 

in the recitals (111) to (113) thereof, are hereby confirmed.  

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
G. 

UNION INTEREST 

(72) 

In view of parties' comments, the Commission continued its analysis pertaining to the 
Union interest.  

1. 

Interest of the Union industry 

(73)  Regarding the interest of the Union industry, no further comments or information was 
received. Therefore the findings in recitals (116) to (120) of the provisional Regulation 
are hereby confirmed. 

2. 

Interest of unrelated importers in the Union 

(74) 

In the absence of any comments on this point, recitals (121) to (123) of the provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

3. 

Interest of the users 

(75)  After the imposition of provisional measures, a user company that had not cooperated 
submitted comments with regard to the Union interest. Notably, the user argued that 
the impact of the anti-dumping measures will be significant on the company. It stated 
that  stainless  steel  tubes  are  a  critical  component  for  several  downstream  products 
including  those  manufactured  by  that  user  (e.g.  heat  exchangers),  and  that  there  was 
also an additional concern of security of supply in view of the delays the company had 
experienced in respect of certain deliveries made by Union producers.  

(76)  However,  given  that  this  user  only  purchases  5  %  of  their  stainless  steel  pipes  and 
tubes from China, the possible impact on this company would appear limited, both in 
terms of costs and security of supply. 

(77)  As concerns  the alleged  cost impact in  particular,  the  company  failed to  substantiate 
this claim with actual data. Furthermore, it is recalled that, as set out in recitals (124) 
and (125) of the provisional Regulation, the cost impact on the sole fully cooperating 
user was considered to be insignificant, both with regard to the whole company and to 
its division using stainless steel tubes.  

(78)  As regards the issue of security of supply raised by the user, it should be recalled that 
there is a large number of third countries other than the PRC that continue to import 
stainless  steel  tubes  into  the  Union.  In  addition,  as  the  Union  industry  remains  the 
most important supplier of the product, their continued existence is critical also for the 
user industry. 

(79)  Although  at  provisional  stage  it  was  also  considered  that  the  anti-dumping  measures 
may  have  a  more  serious  impact  on  those  users  that  use  substantial  quantities  of 
stainless  steel  tubes  imported  from  the  PRC  for  manufacturing  their  downstream 
products (see recital (126) of the provisional Regulation), in view  of the lack of any 
substantiated claim or any new information following provisional disclosure, it can be 
concluded that the essential benefits of the Union industry from the imposition of anti-
dumping  measures  appear  to  outweigh  the  expected  negative  impacts  on  such  users. 
Therefore the findings with regard to the interest of users as laid down in recitals (124) 
to (130) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.  

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
4.  Conclusion on Union interest 

(80)  On the basis of the above, it is definitively concluded that on balance, no compelling 
reasons exist against the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of the 
product concerned originating in the PRC. Therefore the conclusions in recitals (131) 
and (132) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

H. 

DEFINITIVE MEASURES 

1. 

Injury elimination level 

(81)  The  complainants  argued  that  the  5  %  target  profit,  as  established  at  the  provisional 
stage,  was  excessively  low  and  it  reiterated  the  view  that  a  level  of  12  %  would  be 
justified,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  industry  at  hand  is  capital  intensive  and 
necessitates permanent technical improvements and innovation updates, consequently 
substantial investments. The complainants argued that such a profitability level would 
be  needed  to  generate  sufficient  return  on  capital  and  allow  for  those  investments. 
However,  the  above  claim  was  not  convincingly  substantiated  by  actual  figures. 
Therefore it is concluded that the 5 % profit margin established at the provisional stage 
should be maintained. 

(82)  As regards the determination of the injury elimination level, as already stated in recital 
(45)  above,  the  small  correction  with  regard  to  the  adjustment  for  the  level  of  trade 
that affected the calculation of price undercutting was also applied in the calculation of 
the injury elimination level.  

(83)  The above change led to a minor revision of the injury elimination level. As a result, 
the injury elimination level is in the range between 48,3 % and 71,9 %, as shown in 
the table below: 

Company/companies 

Injury elimination 
level 

Changshu Walsin Specialty Steel, Co. Ltd., Haiyu  

Shanghai Jinchang Stainless Steel Tube Manufacturing, Co. 
Ltd., Situan  

Wenzhou Jiangnan Steel Pipe Manufacturing, Co. Ltd., 
Yongzhong 

Sample weighted average for the cooperating exporting 
producers not included in the sample and listed in Annex I 

All other companies 

71,9 % 

48,3 % 

48,6 % 

56,9 % 

71,9 % 

(84)  One  Chinese  exporting  producer  claimed  that  due  to  the  injury  caused  by  the 
economic crisis, the injury margin should be based on price undercutting rather than 
price underselling, claiming that this method had been followed in a number of anti-

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
dumping  proceedings4.  However,  in  all  the  investigations  cited  by  the  exporting 
producer, there were particular reasons regarding the industry or the economic sector 
(such as the threat of creating a monopoly, a substantial capacity increase of the Union 
industry  in  a  mature  market,  the  long-term  absence  of  profits  of  the  industry  on  a 
global  scale)  which  supported  the  exceptional  application  of  this  particular 
methodology.  In  the  current  investigation  this  is  not  the  case,  as  the  economic  crisis 
affected the global economy as such, and can therefore not be considered to be specific 
to the industry producing seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel.  

2.  Definitive measures 

(85) 

In  view  of  the  conclusions  reached  with  regard  to  dumping,  injury,  causation  and 
Union  interest,  and  in  accordance  with  Article  9(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  a 
definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed on the product concerned at the level 
of the lower of the dumping and injury margins found, in accordance with the lesser 
duty  rule.  In  this  case,  as  the  injury  elimination  levels  are  lower  than  the  dumping 
margins established, the definitive measures should be based on the injury elimination 
levels.  

(86)  On the basis of the above, the duty rates, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union 

frontier price, duty unpaid, are: 

Company/companies 

Definitive anti-
dumping duty rate 

Changshu Walsin Specialty Steel, Co. Ltd., Haiyu  

Shanghai Jinchang Stainless Steel Tube Manufacturing, Co. 
Ltd., Situan  

Wenzhou Jiangnan Steel Pipe Manufacturing, Co. Ltd., 
Yongzhong 

Sample weighted average for the cooperating exporting 
producers not included in the sample and listed in Annex I 

All other companies 

71,9 % 

48,3 % 

48,6 % 

56,9 % 

71,9 % 

4 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2376/94 of 27 September 1994 imposing a provisional anti-dumping 
duty on imports of colour television receivers originating in Malaysia, the People's Republic of China, 
the  Republic of  Korea,  Singapore  and  Thailand, OJ  L 255,  1.10.1994, p.  50,  Commission  Regulation 
(EEC) No 129/91 of 11 January 1991 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of small-
screen colour television receivers originating in Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China, OJ L 
14, 19.1.1991, p. 31, Commission Decision of 21 June 1991 accepting undertakings given in connection 
with  the  anti-dumping  proceeding  concerning  imports  of  certain  asbestos  cement  pipes  originating  in 
Turkey,  and  terminating  the  investigation  (91/392/EEC),  OJ  L  209,  31.7.1991,  p.  37,  Commission 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  2686/92  of  16  September  1992  imposing  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on 
imports  of  certain  types  of  electronic  microcircuits  known  as  DRAMs  (dynamic  random  access 
memories)  originating  in  the  Republic  of  Korea,  OJ  L  272,  17.9.1992,  p.  13  and  Council  Regulation 
(EC)  No  1331/2007  of  13  November  2007  imposing  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of 
dicyandiamide originating in the People's Republic of China, OJ L 296, 15.11.2007, p. 1. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(87)  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  the  companies 
concerned.  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  People's  Republic  of  China  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’.  

(88) 

In order to minimise the risks of circumvention due to the high difference in the duty 
rates, it is considered that special measures are needed in this case to ensure the proper 
the 
application  of 
presentation  to  the  Customs  authorities  of  the  Member  States  of  a  valid  commercial 
invoice,  which  shall  conform  to  the  requirements  set  out  in  the  Annex  II  of  this 
Regulation. Imports not accompanied by such an invoice shall be made subject to the 
residual anti-dumping duty applicable to all other exporters. 

the  anti-dumping  duties.  These  special  measures 

include 

(89)  Should  the  exports  by  one  of  the  companies  benefiting  from  lower  individual  duty 
rates increase significantly in volume after the imposition of the measures concerned, 
such an increase in volume could be considered as constituting in itself a change in the 
pattern of trade due to the imposition of measures within the meaning of Article 13(1) 
of the basic Regulation. In such circumstances and provided the conditions are met, an 
anti-circumvention  investigation  may  be  initiated.  This  investigation  may,  inter  alia, 
examine  the  need  for  the  removal  of  individual  duty  rate(s)  and  the  consequent 
imposition of a country-wide duty. 

(90)  Any claim requesting the application of an individual company anti-dumping duty rate 
(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 Commission5 forthwith with all 
relevant information, in particular any modification in the company’s activities linked 
to  production,  domestic  and  export  sales  associated  with,  for  example,  that  name 
change  or  that  change  in  the  production  and  sales  entities.  If  appropriate,  the 
Regulation  will  then  be  accordingly  amended  by  updating  the  list  of  companies 
benefiting from individual duty rates.  

(91)  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  seamless  pipes  and  tubes  of  stainless  steel  originating  in  the 
PRC.  They  were  also  granted  a  period  of  time  within  which  they  could  make 
representations subsequent to the final disclosure. 

(92)  The comments submitted by the interested parties were duly considered. None of the 

comments was such as to alter the findings of the investigation. 

5 

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Trade,  Directorate  H,  Office  N105  04/092,  1049 
Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
(93) 

(94) 

(95) 

In  order  to  ensure  a  proper  enforcement  of  the  anti-dumping  duty,  the  country-wide 
duty level should not only apply to the non-cooperating exporting producers but also 
to those producers which did not have any exports to the Union during the IP. 

In  order  to  ensure  equal  treatment  between  any  new  exporters  and  the  cooperating 
companies  not  included  in  the  sample,  mentioned  in  Annex  I  to  this  Regulation, 
provision  should  be  made  for  the  weighted  average  duty  imposed  on  the  latter 
companies to be applied to any new exporters which would otherwise be entitled to a 
review pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation as that Article does not apply 
where sampling has been used. 

3.  Definitive collection of provisional duties 

In  view  of  the  magnitude  of  the  dumping  margins  found  and  given  the  level  of  the 
injury  caused  to  the  Union  industry  (the  definitive  duty  imposed  by  this  Regulation 
having been set at a level higher than the provisional duty imposed by the provisional 
Regulation),  it  is  considered  necessary  that  the  amounts  secured  by  way  of  the 
provisional  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  by  the  provisional  Regulation  should  be 
definitively collected,  

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

2. 

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of seamless pipes and 
tubes of stainless steel (excluding such pipes and tubes with attached fittings suitable 
for conducting gases or liquids for use in civil aircraft), currently falling within CN 
codes 7304 11 00, 7304 22 00, 7304 24 00, ex 7304 41 00, 7304 49 10, ex 7304 49 
93, ex 7304 49 95, ex 7304 49 99 and ex 7304 90 00 (TARIC codes 7304 41 00 90, 
7304 49 93 90, 7304 49 95 90, 7304 49 99 90 and 7304 90 00 91), and originating in 
the People's Republic of China. 

The  rate  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  the  net,  free-at-Union-
frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and manufactured 
by the companies listed below shall be as follows:  

Company/companies 

Definitive anti-
dumping duty rate 

TARIC 
additional code 

Changshu Walsin Specialty Steel, Co. Ltd., 
Haiyu  

71,9 % 

B120 

Shanghai Jinchang Stainless Steel Tube 
Manufacturing, Co. Ltd., Situan  

48,3 % 

B118 

Wenzhou Jiangnan Steel Pipe Manufacturing, 
Co. Ltd., Yongzhong 

48,6 % 

B119 

Companies listed in Annex I 

56,9 % 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
All other companies 

71,9 % 

B999 

3. 

4. 

The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in 
paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the 
Member  States  of  a  valid  commercial  invoice,  which  shall  conform  to  the 
requirements set out in Annex II. If no such invoice is presented, the duty applicable 
to all other companies shall apply.  

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

Article 2 

The  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  pursuant  to  Commission 
Regulation  (EU)  No  627/2011  on  imports  of  seamless  pipes  and  tubes  of  stainless  steel 
(excluding such pipes and tubes with attached fittings suitable for conducting gases or liquids 
for use in civil aircraft), currently falling within CN codes 7304 11 00, 7304 22 00, 7304 24 
00, ex 7304 41 00, 7304 49 10, ex 7304 49 93, ex 7304 49 95, ex 7304 49 99 and ex 7304 90 
00 and originating in the People's Republic of China, shall be definitively collected.  

Where  any  new  exporting  producer  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China  provides  sufficient 
evidence to the Commission that: 

Article 3 

–  it  did  not  export  to  the  Union  the  product  described  in  Article  1(1)  during  the 

investigation period (1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010), 

–  it  is  not  related  to  any  of  the  exporters  or  producers  in  the  People's  Republic  of 

China which are subject to the measures imposed by this Regulation, 

–  it has actually exported to the Union the product concerned after the investigation 
period  on  which  the  measures  are  based,  or  it  has  entered  into  an  irrevocable 
contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union, 

the  Council,  acting  by  simple  majority  on  a  proposal  submitted  by  the  Commission  after 
consulting  the  Advisory  Committee,  may  amend  Article  1(2)  by  adding  the  new  exporting 
producer  to  the  cooperating  companies  not  included  in  the  sample  and  thus  subject  to  the 
weighted average duty rate of 56,9 %. 

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

Article 4 

EN 

20 

   EN 

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

Done at Brussels, 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
CHINESE COOPERATING EXPORTING PRODUCERS NOT SAMPLED 

ANNEX I 

Name 
Baofeng Steel Group, Co. Ltd., Lishui,  
Changzhou  City  Lianyi  Special  Stainless  Steel  Tube,  Co.  Ltd., 
Changzhou, 
Huadi Steel Group, Co. Ltd., Wenzhou, 
Huzhou Fengtai Stainless Steel Pipes, Co. Ltd., Huzhou, 
Huzhou Gaolin Stainless Steel Tube Manufacture, Co. Ltd., Huzhou, 
Huzhou Zhongli Stainless Steel Pipe, Co. Ltd., Huzhou, 
Jiangsu Wujin Stainless Steel Pipe Group, Co. Ltd., Beijing, 
Jiangyin Huachang Stainless Steel Pipe, Co. Ltd., Jiangyin 
Lixue Group, Co. Ltd., Ruian, 
Shanghai Crystal Palace Pipe, Co. Ltd., Shanghai, 
Shanghai Baoluo Stainless Steel Tube, Co. Ltd., Shanghai, 
Shanghai Shangshang Stainless Steel Pipe, Co. Ltd., Shanghai, 
Shanghai Tianbao Stainless Steel, Co. Ltd., Shanghai, 
Shanghai Tianyang Steel Tube, Co. Ltd., Shanghai, 
Wenzhou Xindeda Stainless Steel Material, Co. Ltd., Wenzhou, 
Wenzhou Baorui Steel, Co. Ltd., Wenzhou,  
Zhejiang Conform Stainless Steel Tube, Co. Ltd., Jixing, 
Zhejiang Easter Steel Pipe, Co. Ltd., Jiaxing, 
Zhejiang Five - Star Steel Tube Manufacturing, Co. Ltd., Wenzhou, 
Zhejiang Guobang Steel, Co. Ltd., Lishui, 
Zhejiang Hengyuan Steel, Co. Ltd., Lishui,  
Zhejiang Jiashang Stainless Steel, Co. Ltd., Jiaxing City, 
Zhejiang Jinxin Stainless Steel Manufacture, Co. Ltd., Xiping Town, 
Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals, Co. Ltd., Huzhou, 
Zhejiang Kanglong Steel, Co. Ltd., Lishui, 
Zhejiang Qiangli Stainless Steel Manufacture, Co. Ltd., Xiping Town, 
Zhejiang Tianbao Industrial, Co. Ltd., Wenzhou, 
Zhejiang Tsingshan Steel Pipe, Co. Ltd., Lishui, 
Zhejiang Yida Special Steel, Co. Ltd., Xiping Town.  

TARIC additional code 
B 236 

B 237 
B 238 
B 239 
B 240 
B 241 
B 242 
B 243 
B 244 
B 245 
B 246 
B 247 
B 248 
B 249 
B 250 
B 251 
B 252 
B 253 
B 254 
B 255 
B 256 
B 257 
B 258 
B 259 
B 260 
B 261 
B 262 
B 263 
B 264 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX II 

A  declaration  signed  by  an  official  of  the  entity  issuing  the  commercial  invoice,  in  the  following 
format, must appear on the valid commercial invoice referred to in Article 1(3): 

(1) the name and function of the official of the entity issuing the commercial invoice; 

(2) the following declaration: 

"I,  the  undersigned,  certify  that  the  (volume)  of  seamless  pipes  and  tubes  of  stainless  steel  sold  for 
export  to  the  European  Union  covered  by  this  invoice  was  manufactured  by  (company  name  and 
registered  seat)  (TARIC  additional  code)  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China.  I  declare  that  the 
information provided in this invoice is complete and correct. 

Date and signature." 

EN 

23 

   EN