Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC)No 1225/2009, and terminating the expiry review proceeding concerning imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Croatia
Date: 2012-06-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Croatia, Russia, Ukraine, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), iron, originating product, steel, tube

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 4.6.2012  
COM(2012) 264 final 

2012/0136 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, 
of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine, following an expiry review pursuant 
to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC)No 1225/2009, and terminating the expiry review 
proceeding concerning imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, 
originating in Croatia 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

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  expiry  review  proceeding 
concerning imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in 
Croatia, Russia and Ukraine. 

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  and  in  particular  Articles  9 
and 11(2) thereof. 

Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

The  measures  currently  in  force  were  imposed  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
954/2006 on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in 
Croatia, Russia and Ukraine. 

Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

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  foresee  a  general  impact  assessment  but  contains  an 
exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed. 

Legal elements of the proposal 

Summary of the proposed action 

On  28  June  2011,  the  Commission  initiated  an  expiry  review  of  the  anti-dumping 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
measures  applicable  to  imports  of  certain  seamless  pipes  and  tubes,  of  iron  or  steel, 
originating  in  Croatia,  Russia  and  Ukraine.  The  attached  proposal  for  a  Council 
Regulation  is  based  on  the  findings  of  the  lasting  nature  of  the  continuation  or 
recurrence of dumping and inury concerning the imports of certain seamless pipes and 
tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine. With regard to Croatia, it was 
found  that  it  is  not  likely  that  injury  would  reoccur  if  the  measures  were  allowed  to 
lapse.  

It  is  therefore  proposed  that  the  Council  adopt  the  attached  proposal  for  a  regulation 
extending  the  measures  currently  in  force  on  imports  of  certain  seamless  pipes  and 
tubes,  of  iron  or  steel,  originating  Russia  and  Ukraine  for  a  period  of  five  years  and 
terminating the proceeding concerning imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of 
iron or steel, originating in Croatia.  

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  and  in 
particular Article 11(2) thereof.  

Subsidiarity principle 

The  proposal  falls  under  the  exclusive  competence  of  the  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  the  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 instruments: Regulation. 

Other  means  would  not  be  adequate  for  the  following  reason:  The  above-mentioned 
basic Regulation does not foresee alternative options. 

Budgetary implication 

The proposal has no implication for the Union budget. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2012/0136 (NLE) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, 
of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine, following an expiry review pursuant 
to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC)No 1225/2009, and terminating the expiry review 
proceeding concerning imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, 
originating in Croatia 

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 Articles 9(2), 9(4) and 11(2) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

1. 

PROCEDURE 

1.1. 

Previous investigations and existing measures 

(1) 

By  Regulation  (EC)  No  2320/19972  the  Council  imposed  anti-dumping  duties  on 
imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel, originating in, 
inter  alia,  Russia.  By  Commission  Decision  2000/70/EC3,  an  undertaking  was 
accepted  from an  exporter in Russia. By Regulation No (EC) 348/20004 the  Council 
imposed anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or 
steel, originating in Croatia and Ukraine. By Council Regulation (EC) No 1322/20045, 
it  was  decided  to  no  longer  apply  the  measures  in  force  on  imports  from,  inter  alia, 
Russia  as  a  matter  of  prudence  in  connection  with  an  anti-competitive  behaviour  of 
certain Union producers in the past (see recital (9) of that Regulation).  

(2) 

Following  a  review  investigation  carried  out  in  accordance  with  Article  11(3)  of  the 
basic  Regulation,  the  Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  258/20056,  amended  the 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. 
OJ L 322, 25.11.1997, p. 1. 
OJ L 23, 28.1.2000, p. 78. 
OJ L 45, 17.2.2000, p. 1. 
OJ L 246, 20.7.2004, p. 10. 
OJ L 46, 17.2.2005, p. 7.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

definitive measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 348/2000, repealed the possibility 
of  exemption  from  the  duties  provided  for  in  Article  2  of  the  same  Regulation  and 
imposed an anti-dumping duty of 38.8% on imports from Croatia and an anti-dumping 
duty  of  64.1%  on  imports  from  Ukraine  with  the  exception  of  imports  from 
Dnepropetrovsk Tube Works ('DTW'), which were subject to an anti-dumping duty of 
51.9%.  

By  Decision  2005/133/EC7,  the  Commission  partially  suspended  the  definitive 
measures regarding Croatia and Ukraine for a period of nine months, with effect from 
18 February 2005. The partial extension was extended for a further period of one year 
by Council Regulation (EC) No 1866/20058.  

By Regulation (EC) No 954/20069 the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties 
on  imports  of  certain  seamless  pipes  and  tubes  originating  in,  inter  alia,  Croatia, 
Russia  and  Ukraine,  repealed  Council  Regulations  (EC)  No  2320/97  and  (EC)  No 
348/2000,  terminated  the  interim  and  expiry  reviews  of  the  anti-dumping  duties  on 
imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes or iron or non-alloy steel originating, inter 
alia,  in  Russia  and  terminated  the  interim  reviews  of  the  anti-dumping  duties  on 
imports  of  certain  seamless  pipes  and  tubes  of  iron  or  non-alloy  steel  originating  in, 
inter alia, Croatia, Russia and Ukraine (the ‘latest investigation').  

Therefore,  the  measures  in  force  are  those  established  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 
954/2006, i.e. 29.8%  for imports from Croatia, 35.8% for imports from Russia,  with 
the exception of the Joint Stock Company Chelyabinsk Tube Rolling Plant and Joint 
Stock Company Pervouralsky Novotrubny Works (24.1%), OAO Volzhsky Pipe Plant, 
OAO  Taganrog  Metallurgical  Works,  OAO  Sinarsky  Pipe  Plant  and  OAO  Seversky 
Tube  Works  (27.2%),  and  25.7%  for  imports  from  Ukraine,  with  the  exception  of 
OJSC Dnepropetrovsk Tube Works (12.3%), CJSJ Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant 
Niko Tube and OJSC Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (25.1%).  

(6)  With  regard  to  CJSC  Nikopolosky  Seamless  Tubes  Plant  Niko  Tube  and  OJSC 
Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (NTRP) it is recalled that their company names 
changed in February 2007 to CJSC Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko 
Tube  and  OJSC  Interpipe  Nizhnedneprovsky  Tube  Rolling  Plant,  respectively.10 
Subsequently, CJSC Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube has been 
discontinued as a legal entity and all its property and non-property rights and liabilities 
was  taken  over  by  LLC  Interpipe  Niko  Tube,  which  was  established  in  December 
2007.  

(7) 

7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 

In  accordance  with  Article  266  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European 
Union,  the  anti-dumping  duty  rate  for  the  Interpipe  group  was  re-calculated  on  the 
basis of the judgment of the ECJ of 12 February 201211. The duty currently in force 
for  this  group  is  17.7%  as  established  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  XX/201212 
implementing this judgment of the ECJ.  

OJ L 46, 17.2.2005, p. 46. 
OJ L 300, 17.11.2005, p. 1. 
OJ L 175, 29.6.2006, p. 4.  
OJ C 288, 30.11.2007, p. 34. 
Case C-191/09 – Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe NTRP v. Council. 
OJ L XX, xx.yy.2012, p. x. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
1.2. 

Request for an expiry review 

(8) 

(9) 

On  28  June  2011,  the  Commission  announced  by  a  notice  published  in  the  Official 
Journal  of  the  European  Union  the  initiation  of  an  expiry  review  ('Notice  of 
initiation')13  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  applicable  to  imports  of  certain  seamless 
pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Croatia, Russia and Ukraine pursuant to 
Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. 

The review was initiated following a substantiated request lodged on 29 March 2011 
by  the  Defence  Committee  of  the  Seamless  Steel  Tubes  Industry  of  the  European 
Union ('the applicant') on behalf of Union producers representing a major proportion, 
in  this  case  more  than  50%,  of  the  total  Union  production  of  certain  seamless  pipes 
and tubes. The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would 
be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union 
Industry ('UI'). 

(10)  Further  to  the  expiry  review  mentioned  above,  the  Commission  has,  in  parallel, 
initiated  two  partial  reviews  pursuant  to  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation 
concerning imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in 
Ukraine and Russia14. These partial reviews were requested by one group of exporting 
producers  in  Ukraine,  the  Interpipe  group,  and  one  group  of  exporting  producers  in 
Russia,  the  TMK  group,  respectively.  Both  reviews  are  limited  in  scope  to  the 
examination of dumping only as far as the applicants are concerned.  

1.3. 

Investigation 

(11)  The Commission  officially advised  the exporting producers, importers,  known users, 
the representatives of the exporting countries, the applicant and the Union producers 
mentioned in the request of the initiation of the review. Interested parties were given 
the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within 
the time-limit set out in the notice of initiation. 

(12) 

In view of the large number of exporting producers in Russia and Ukraine, of Union 
producers  and  of  importers  involved  in  the  investigation,  sampling  was  initially 
envisaged  in  the  notice  of  initiation  in  accordance  with  Article  17  of  the  basic 
Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be 
indeed  necessary  and,  if  so,  to  select  a  sample,  the  above  parties  were  requested,  to 
make  themselves  known  within  15  days  of  the  initiation  of  the  proceeding  and  to 
provide the Commission with the information requested in the notice of initiation.  

(13)  Given that only one exporting producer in Russia and only one exporting producer in 
Ukraine  provided  the  information  requested  in  the  notice  of  initiation  and  expressed 
their willingness to further cooperate with the Commission, it was decided not to apply 
sampling in the case of the exporting producers in Russia and Ukraine, and to send a 
questionnaire  to  the  aforementioned  producers.  Thereafter,  the  exporting  producer  in 
Russia which provided the information requested in the notice of initiation decided not 
to  further  cooperate  by  sending  a  reply  to  the  questionnaire  intended  for  exporting 
producer in Russia. 

13 
14 

OJ C 187, 28.6.2011, p. 16. 
OJ C 223, 29.7.2011, p. 8 and OJ C 303, 14.10.2011, p. 11. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
(14)  Nineteen  Union  producers  provided  the  information  requested  for  the  selection  of 
sample  and  expressed  their  willingness  to  cooperate  with  the  Commission.  On  the 
basis  of  the  information  received  from  the  Union  producers,  the  Commission  had, 
prior to the initiation, provisionally selected a sample of  four producers, which were 
found to be representative of the Union industry in terms of volume of production and 
sales  of  the  like  product  in  the  Union.  Following  comments  received  on  the 
appropriateness  of  this  choice  within  the  deadline  of  15  days  after  the  initiation,  the 
Commission replaced one of the provisionally selected producers by another producer.  

(15)  Four  importers  provided  the  information  requested  in  the  notice  of  initiation  and 
expressed  their  willingness  to  cooperate  with  the  Commission.  Therefore  the 
Commission  decided  not  to  apply  sampling  and  to  send  a  questionnaire  to  the 
aforementioned importers.  

(16)  Questionnaires  were  therefore  sent  to  the  four  sampled  Union  producers,  to  four 
importers  and  to  all  exporting  producers  in  the  three  countries  concerned  that  came 
forward. 

(17)  All  exporting  producers  in  Russia  failed  to  submit  the  questionnaire  replies.  It  is 
therefore  considered  that  no  exporting  producer  in  Russia  cooperated  in  the 
investigation. 

(18)  One group of exporting producers in Ukraine provided a questionnaire reply.  

(19)  One exporting producer in Croatia provided a reply to the questionnaire. 

(20)  Replies  to  the  questionnaires  were  further  received  from  the  four  sampled  Union 

producers, three importers and one user.  

(21)  The  Commission  sought  and  verified  all  information  it  deemed  necessary  for  the 
purpose  of  determining  the  likelihood  of  continuation  or  recurrence  of  dumping  and 
resulting  injury  and  of  the  Union  interest.  Verification  visits  were  carried  out  at  the 
premises of the following companies: 

(a) 

Union producers: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Arcelor Mittal Tubular products Ostrava, Czech Republic, 

Tenaris  Dalmine  S.p.A.,  Bergamo,  Italy,  and  its  related  company  TGS  UK, 
Aberdeen, UK, 

Tubos  Reunidos  S.A.,  Amurrio,  Spain,  and  its  related  company  Almesa, 
Barcelona, Spain,  

V & M Deutschland GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany; 

(b) 

Exporting producer in Croatia: 

– 

CMC Sisak d.o.o.; 

(c) 

Exporting producer in Ukraine: 

EN 

7 

   EN 

– 

The  Interpipe  Group  (OJSC  Interpipe  NTRP,  Dnepropetrovsk,  Ukraine,  LLC 
Interpipe  Niko  Tube,  Nikopol,  Ukraine)  and  their  related  trading  companies 
LLC  Interpipe  Ukraine,  Dnepropetrovsk,  Ukraine  and  Interpipe  Europe  SA, 
Lugano, Switzerland);  

(d) 

Importers/users: 

– 

– 

Castellan Maria & C s.p.s., San Dona di Piave, Italy, 

TAL Group, Siderpighi, Pontenure, Piacenza, Italy.  

(22)  The  investigation  regarding  the  continuation  or  recurrence  of  dumping  and  injury 
covered the period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 ('review investigation period' 
or 'RIP'). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of a likelihood of a 
continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2008 up to the 
end of the RIP ('period considered'). 

2. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

2.1. 

Product concerned 

(23)  The  product  concerned  is  the  same  as  that  in  the  last  investigation  which  led  to  the 
imposition of measures currently in force, i.e. certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron 
or steel ('SPT'), of circular cross-section, of an external diameter not exceeding 406,4 
mm  with  a  Carbon  Equivalent  Value  (CEV)  not  exceeding  0,86  according  to  the 
International  Institute  of  Welding (IIW)  formula  and  chemical  analysis15,  originating 
in Croatia, Russia and Ukraine ('the product concerned'), currently falling within CN 
codes ex 7304 11 00, ex 7304 19 10, ex 7304 19 30, ex 7304 22 00, ex 7304 23 00, ex 
7304 24 00, ex 7304 29 10, ex 7304 29 30, ex 7304 31 80, ex 7304 39 58, ex 7304 39 
92, ex 7304 39 93, ex 7304 51 89, ex 7304 59 92 and ex 7304 59 93. 

(24)  The  product  concerned  is  used  in  a  wide  variety  of  applications,  like  line  pipes  to 
transport  liquids,  in  the  construction  business  for  piling,  for  mechanical  uses,  gas 
tubes, boiler tubes ad oil and country tubular goods ('OCTG') for drilling, casing and 
tubing for the oil industry.  

(25)  SPT take very different forms at the time of their delivery to the users. They can be 
e.g.  galvanised,  threaded,  delivered  as  green  tubes  (i.e.  without  any  heat  treatment), 
with special ends, different cross-sections, cut to size or not. There are no generalized 
standard  sizes  for  the  tubes,  which  explains  why  most  of  the  SPT  are  made  upon 
customers'  order.  SPT  are  normally  connected  by  welding.  However,  in  particular 
cases  they  can  be  connected  by  their  thread  or  be  used  alone,  although  they  remain 
weldable.  The  investigation  showed  that  all  SPT  share  the  same  basic  physical, 
chemical and technical characteristics and the same basic uses.  

2.2. 

Like product 

15 

The  CEV  shall  be  determined  in  accordance  with  Technical  Report,  1967,  IIW  doc.  IX-555-67, 
published by the International Institute of Welding (IIW). 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
(26)  As  established  in  previous  as  well  as  in  the  latest  investigation,  this  expiry  review 
investigation  confirmed  that  the  product  exported  to  the  Union  from  Croatia,  Russia 
and  Ukraine,  the  product  produced  and  sold  on  the  domestic  markets  of  Croatia, 
Russia  and  Ukraine,  and  the  product  produced  and  sold  in  the  Union  by  the  Union 
producers have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and end uses and 
are therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the 
basic Regulation. 

3. 

DUMPING 

(27) 

In  accordance  with  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  was  examined  whether 
dumping  was  likely  to  continue  or  recur  upon  a  possible  expiry  of  the  measures  in 
force. 

3.1. 

Preliminary remarks 

(28)  During the RIP, the total import volume, as recorded in Eurostat, of SPT from Croatia, 
Russia  and  Ukraine  amounted  to  42.723  tonnes,  representing  2.5%  of  the  Union 
market share. 

(29) 

In accordance with Article 11(9) of the basic Regulation, the same methodology was 
used  as  in  the  latest  investigation,  whenever  circumstances  have  not  changed  or 
whenever  the  information  was  available.  In  case  of  non-cooperation,  such  as  in  the 
case of Russia, use had to be made of facts available in accordance with Article 18 of 
the basic Regulation. As far as Croatia and Ukraine are concerned, information made 
available by the cooperating companies as well as publicly available information were 
used. 

3.2. 

Dumping of imports during the RIP  

3.2.1.  General methodology 

(30)  The  general  methodology  set  out  hereafter  has  been  applied  to  all  cooperating 
producers in Croatia and in Ukraine. The presentation of the findings on dumping for 
each  of  the  countries  concerned  therefore  only  describes  what  is  specific  for  each 
exporting country. With regard to Russia, in the absence of cooperation from either of 
the existing Russian exporting producers the overall analysis,  including the dumping 
calculation,  is  based  on  best  facts  available  pursuant  to  Article  18  of  the  basic 
Regulation. 

3.2.2.  Normal value 

(31) 

In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation it was first examined for each 
cooperating producer whether its total volume of domestic sales of the like product to 
independent  customers  was  representative  in  comparison  with  its  total  volume  of 
export  sales  to  the  Union,  i.e.  whether  the  total  volume  of  such  sales  represented  at 
least 5% of the total volume of export sales of the product concerned to the Union.  

(32)  For each product type sold by an exporting producer on its domestic market and found 
to  be  directly  comparable  with  the  product type  sold  for  export  to  the  Union,  it  was 
established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of 
Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular product type were 

EN 

9 

   EN 

considered sufficiently representative when the total volume of that product type sold 
by the exporting producer on the domestic market to independent customers during the 
RIP represented at least 5% of its total sales volume of the comparable product type 
exported to the Union.  

(33) 

It  was  also  examined  whether  the  domestic  sales  of  each  product  type  could  be 
regarded as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the 
basic  Regulation.  This  was  done  by  establishing  the  proportion  of  domestic  sales  to 
independent  customers  on  the  domestic  market  which  were  profitable  for  each 
exported type of the product concerned during the RIP.  

(34)  For  those  product  types  where  more  than  80%  by  volume  of  sales  on  the  domestic 
market  of  the  product  type  were  above  cost  and  the  weighted  average  sales  price  of 
that type was equal to or above the unit cost of production, normal value, by product 
type, was calculated as the weighted average of the actual domestic prices of all sales 
of the type in question, irrespective of whether those sales were profitable or not.  

(35)  Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80% or less of the 
total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was 
below  the  unit  cost  of  production,  normal  value  was  based  on  the  actual  domestic 
price,  which  was  calculated  as  a  weighted  average  price  of  only  the  profitable 
domestic sales of that type made during the RIP.  

(36)  Wherever  there  were  no  domestic  sales  of  a  particular  product  type  and  for  product 
types where the domestic sales were insufficient, the normal value was constructed in 
accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.  

(37)  When constructing normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, the 
amounts for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits have been based, 
pursuant to Article 2(6) chapeau of the basic Regulation, on the actual data pertaining 
to the production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by the 
exporting producer or on facts available. 

3.2.3.  Export price 

(38) 

In all cases where the product concerned was exported to independent customers in the 
Union,  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. 

3.2.4.  Comparison 

(39)  The normal value and the export price of the exporting producers of the cooperating 
group  were  compared  on  an  ex-works  basis.  For  the  purpose  of  ensuring  a  fair 
comparison between the normal value and export price, due allowance in the form of 
adjustments  was  made  for  differences  affecting  prices  and  price  comparability  in 
accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.  

3.2.5.  Dumping margin for the cooperating exporting producers.  

(40)  According  to  Article  2(11)  and  (12)  of  the  basic  Regulation  the  weighted  average 
normal value was compared with the weighted average export price per product type 
on an ex-work basis for each cooperating company. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

3.3. 

Croatia 

(41)  During the RIP, the total import volume of SPT from CMC Sisak, which is the sole 
exporting  producer  of  SPT  in  Croatia,  represented  less  than  1%  of  the  total  Union 
consumption. 

3.3.1.  Normal value 

(42)  The  investigation  established  that  while  the  domestic  sales  of  the  product  concerned 
were  representative  in  accordance  with  recitals  (30)  and  (31)  above,  there  were  no 
sales  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade.  Accordingly,  the  normal  value  for  the 
cooperating producer was constructed pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.  

(43)  As a result, the normal value was constructed on the basis of the cost of manufacturing 
to  which  a  reasonable  amount  for  profit  and  for  SG&A  was  added,  based  on  facts 
available. 

3.3.2.  Export price 

(44)  The  cooperating  producer  exported  the  product  concerned  either  directly  or  via  their 
related trading company in Switzerland to independent customers in the Union. Export 
prices  were  therefore,  in  accordance  with  Article  2(8)  of  the  basic  Regulation, 
established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable by the first independent 
customer in the Union. 

3.3.3.  Comparison 

(45)  The comparison between the constructed normal value and the export price was made 

on an ex-works basis.  

(46)  For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison at the same level of trade due allowance 
was made for differences that were found to affect price comparability. Adjustments 
pursuant  to  Article  2(10)  of  the  basic  Regulation  were  thus  made  in  respect  of 
transport costs, rebates and discounts, commissions and credit costs. 

3.3.4.  Dumping margin 

(47) 

In  accordance  with  Article  2(11)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  dumping  margin  was 
established  on  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of  the  weighted  average  of  the  constructed 
normal  value  with  the  weighted  average  export  price  to  the  Union.  This  comparison 
showed the existence of significant dumping of over 60% during the RIP.  

3.4. 

Russia 

(48)  During the RIP, as recorded in Eurostat, the total import volume of SPT from Russia 

amounted to 10.785 MT, representing around 1% of the Union market share. 

3.4.1.  Normal value 

(49)  As mentioned above, in the absence of cooperation by exporting producers in Russia, 
resort had to be made to facts available to determine whether dumping existed in the 
RIP. Pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation and in the absence of questionnaire 

EN 

11 

   EN 

data, normal value was calculated based on data from the review request and the Metal 
Expert  periodical  publications  for  the  most  basic  quality  of  seamless  hot  finished 
tubes. 

(50) 

In regard to gas prices in Russia, it was noted that an adjustment had to be made under 
Article  2(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation  when  measures  were  imposed  in  the  latest 
investigation16.  However,  in  the  current  investigation,  the  normal  value  was 
determined without considering whether an adjustment was necessary for the gas costs 
borne  by  Russian  exporting  producers  in  accordance  with  Article  2(5)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. This was because, as shown in recital (53) below, the use of an unadjusted 
cost of production already clearly shows that dumping took place during the RIP. As a 
consequence, and given the fact that the purpose of an expiry review is to determine 
whether dumping would be likely to continue or recur should measures be repealed in 
order to determine whether the currently applicable measures should be maintained or 
repealed, it was considered that it was not necessary to examine whether an adjustment 
under Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation was justified in this case.  

3.4.2.  Export price 

(51)  Average  export  price  was  calculated  based  on  the  CIF  value  from  Eurostat  for  the 

corresponding types of seamless hot finished tubes. 

3.4.3.  Comparison 

(52) 

In  the  absence  of  verified  questionnaire  data,  the  comparision  between  the  normal 
value  and  the  export  price  was  made  using  data  found  in  the  request  in  accordance 
with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. 

3.4.4.  Dumping margin 

(53) 

In  accordance  with  Article  18(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  dumping  margin  was 
established on the basis of a comparison of the calculated average normal value with 
the  weighted  average  export  price  to  the  Union,  by  product  type.  This  comparison 
showed  the  existence  of  dumping  amounting  to  38.4%,  which  is  higher  than  the 
dumping margin of 35.8% found in the latest investigation. 

3.5. 

Ukraine 

(54)  Of three known exporting producers in Ukraine only one group of exporting producers 
cooperated  with  the  Commission  in  the  current  review  investigation,  the  Interpipe 
group.  This  exporting  producer  accounted  for  approximately  70%  of  Ukraine's  total 
SPT production and more than 80% of Ukraine's total exports to the European Union. 
During  the  RIP,  the  share  of  Ukraine's  exports  to  the  Union  in  relation  to  Union 
consumption amounted to less than 2%. 

3.5.1.  Normal value 

16 

See recitals 87 and 94 to 99 of Regulation (EC) 954/2006 (OJ L 175, 29.6.2006, p. 4). 

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
(55)  The  investigation  established  that  the  domestic  sales  of  the  like  product  were 
representative in accordance with recitals (31) to (33) above. Therefore, normal value 
was established in accordance with recitals (34) to (37) as above. 

(56) 

In regard to energy prices in Ukraine, it was noted that an adjustment had to be made 
under Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation when measures were imposed in the latest 
investigation17.  However,  in  the  current  investigation,  the  normal  value  was 
determined without considering whether an adjustment was necessary for energy costs 
borne by Ukrainian exporting producers in accordance  with Article  2(5) of the basic 
Regulation. This was because, as shown in recital (61) below, the use of an unadjusted 
cost of production already clearly shows that dumping took place during the RIP. As a 
consequence, and given the fact that the purpose of an expiry review is to determine 
whether dumping would be likely to continue or recur should measures be repealed in 
order to determine whether the currently applicable measures should be maintained or 
repealed, it was considered that it was not necessary to examine whether an adjustment 
under Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation was justified in this case.  

3.5.2.  Export price 

(57)  The  Interpipe  group  exported  the  product  concerned  through  their  related  trading 
company  located  in  Switzerland  directly  to  independent  customers  in  the  Union. 
Export prices were therefore established in accordance with recital (38). 

3.5.3.  Comparison 

(58)  The  normal  value  and  the  export  price  of  the  Interpipe  group  were  compared  in 
accordance  with  recital  (39).  On  this  basis,  adjustments  for  transport,  insurance, 
handling, loading and ancillary  costs, credit costs, and commissions have been made 
where applicable and justified. 

3.5.4.  Dumping margin 

(59)  The dumping margin was calculated in accordance with recital (40). 

(60)  As in the last investigation, and in line with the Institutions' standard practice, a single 
dumping margin was calculated for the whole group. In the method used for doing so 
the amount of dumping was calculated for each individual exporting producer before 
determining a weighted average rate of dumping for the group as a whole. It should be 
noted  that  this  methodology  was  different  from  the  methodology  applied  in  the  last 
investigation,  where  the  dumping  calculation  was  done  by  collapsing  all  production, 
profitability  and  sales  in  the  Union  of  the  producing  entities.  The  change  in 
circumstances  that  warrants  this  change  in  methodology  is  due  to  a  change  in  the 
corporate structure of the group allowing the identification of the producer within the 
group in respect to sales and production  

(61)  The  comparison  showed  the  existence  of  dumping  of  more  than  10%  for  the 
coperating group of exporting producers that exported to the Union in the RIP.  

4. 

LIKELIHOOD OF A CONTINUATION OF DUMPING 

17 

See recitals 119 to 127 of Regulation (EU) No 954/2006 (OJ L 175, 29.6.2006). 

EN 

13 

   EN 

                                                 
4.1. 

Preliminary remarks 

(62) 

It follows from the above considerations that dumping continued to be present during 
the review investigation period. Therefore, the likelihood of continuation of dumping 
in case the measures would be allowed to lapse is examined in the following.  

4.1.1.  Croatia 

(63)  As noted above in recital (46), a significant dumping margin was found to exist during 
the  review  investigation  period.  However,  the  owner  of  the  exporting  producer  has 
subsequently  decided  to  divest  the  company  and,  as  a  consequence,  the  exporting 
producer stopped accepting new orders in autumn 2011 and ceased all production of 
SPT by the end of 2011. Accordingly, as of 2012 there is no production of seamless 
pipes  and  tubes  in  Croatia  and  exports  in  the  post-RIP  period  have  been  of  very 
limited quantities. 

(64)  The  investigation  showed  that  no  significant  stocks  are  held  by  the  company  which 
produced  to  orders.  Indeed,  due  to  the  wide  variety  of  pipes  and  high  costs,  no 
economical benefits can be realised by holding large stocks.  

(65) 

In view of the above consideration and taking into account that the process of selling 
the company is still ongoing, a continuation of dumping of SPT originating in Croatia 
is highly unlikely in the short to medium term.  

4.1.2.  Russia 

4.1.2.1.  Preliminary remarks 

(66)  Further to the analysis of the existence of dumping during the RIP, the likelihood of 

continuation of dumping was also investigated. 

(67) 

In  this  respect,  the  following  elements  were  analysed:  the  volume  and  prices  of 
dumped imports from Russia, the production capacity and the spare capacity in Russia, 
the attractiveness of the Union market and other third markets. 

4.1.2.2.  Volume and prices of dumped imports from Russia 

(68)  After the imposition of definitive measures in June 2006 and their revision in August 
200818, imports declared as originating in Russia decreased steadily and remained low 
until the end of the RIP. 

(69) 

In the same period, prices of dumped imports from Russia remained relatively low. 

4.1.2.3.  Production capacity and spare capacity in Russia 

(70)  As far as the total production capacity of the SPT in Russia is concerned, and in the 
absence of verified data, different sources of information publicly available point to a 
production capacity that is largely in excess of demand on the domestic market. 

18 

OJ L 220, 15.8.2008, p. 1. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

                                                 
(71)  Even  though  the  Russian  market  share  in  the  EU  is  not  significantly  above  1%,  the 
estimated installed Russian capacity is close to 4 million MT per annum. The Russian 
industry only operates on an estimated 70% of its production capacity. By deducting 
the known domestic consumption and the export volumes to other markets according 
to  the  Russian  export  statistics  there  is  a  current  spare  capacity  exceeding  1  million 
MT per annum which represents almost 65% of the EU consumption. In spite of this 
current overcapacity and based on information provided by the complainant which was 
not  contested  by  the  interested  parties,  it  appears  that  the  Russian  capacity  may  be 
further  increased  in  the  next  years.  One  exporting  producer  in  Russia  argued  that  it 
was operating at a higher capacity rate and had no intention to expand its production 
capacity  in  the  near  future.  This  export  producer  also  claimed  that  according  to 
reputable market publication, the Russian industry SPT capacity utilisation rates were 
"high" and that the amount of production of product concerned in Russia was in line 
with the domestic consumption. However, these information provided by the company 
were not available in the file as the company had chosen not to cooperate, nor could it 
be verified. Furthermore, the term "high" was not quantified in this publication and did 
not  permit  to  reach  a  conclusion  on.  Hence  the  comments  regarding  production  and 
consumption levels in Russia of the product concerned had no devaluating effects on 
the  existence  of  significant  spare  capacity  in  Russia.  It  should  be  noted  that  the 
estimated  installed  capacity  of  close  to  4  million  MT  per  annum  has  not  been 
contested after disclosure of the investigation findings to all interested parties. 

4.1.2.4.  Attractiveness of the Union market and other third countries markets.  

(72)  As  mentioned  above,  there  is  an  important  production  overcapacity  on  the  Russian 
domestic  market  suggesting  a  strong  and  natural  need  to  find  alternative  markets  to 
absorb this excess in production capacity. 

(73)  The Union market is one of the biggest markets in the world and is still growing. It is 
also  clear,  based  on  information  collected  during  the  investigation  that  Russian 
companies  have  shown  a  big  interest  in  developing  their  presence  on  one  of  the 
biggest markets in the world and maintaining a significant market share on the Union 
market.  One  exporting  producer  in  Russia  argued  that  the  information  submitted  as 
requested  in  the  notice  of  initiation  should  have  been  the  basis  for  the  findings 
regarding the existence of dumping and the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and 
injury  rather  than  making  a  determination  based  on  best  facts  available.  However, 
when  this  exporting  producer  in  Russia  chose  to  not  further  cooperate,  it  stated  that 
due  to  internal  restructuring  processes,  the  completion  of  the  questionnaire,  which 
would  include  the  information  submitted  after  initiation,  could  not  be  used  to 
determine  in  its  case  whether  there  is  a  likelihood  of  continuation  or  recurrence  of 
dumping or whether the circumstances changed to the degree justifying the review of 
the level of the measures. Therefore, it was considered that this information could not 
be used. 

4.1.2.5.  Conclusion of the likelihood of continuation of dumping 

(74) 

In view of the findings described above, it can be concluded that imports from Russia 
are still being dumped and that there is a strong likelihood of continuation of dumping. 
Given  the  current  and  potential  future  spare  capacity  in  Russia  and  the  fact  that  the 
Union market is one of the largest market in the world with attractive level of prices, it 

EN 

15 

   EN 

can be concluded that the Russian exporters are likely to further increase their exports 
to the Union at dumped prices should the anti-dumping measures be allowed to lapse.  

4.1.3.  Ukraine 

4.1.3.1.  Preliminary remarks 

(75)  Further to the analysis of the existence of dumping during the RIP (recitals (54)-(61) 

above), the likelihood of continuation of dumping was also examined. 

(76) 

In  this  respect,  the  following  elements  were  analysed;  the  volume  and  prices  of 
dumped  imports  from  Ukraine,  the  production  capacity  and  the  spare  capacity  in 
Ukraine and the attractiveness of the Union market and other third markets. 

4.1.3.2.  Volume and prices of dumped imports from Ukraine 

(77)  After  the  imposition  of  definitive  measures  in  June  2006  imports  from  Ukraine 
decreased significantly and have remained at a rather low level with a Union market 
share  of  below  2%.  In  the  same  period,  prices  of  dumped  imports  from  Ukraine 
remained relatively low. In addition, the average sales prices to other export markets 
than  the  Union,  where  no  anti-dumping  duties  are  applied,  were  found  to  be  at  a 
similar or even lower level than the sales prices to the EU. 

4.1.3.3.  Production capacity and spare capacity in Ukraine 

(78)  Based  on  information  available  in  the  public  domain  there  are  three  main  Ukrainian 
producers  of  SPT  with  a  total  estimated  production  capacity  of  around  1.5  million 
tonnes annually or almost equal to the total EU consumption.  

(79)  Even  though,  the  Ukrainian  market  share  in  the  EU  is  just  below  2%,  the  estimated 
spare  capacity  in  Ukraine  is  50%  or  750,000  tonnes  per  annum,  which  represents 
almost half of the Union consumption.  

4.1.3.4.  Attractiveness of the Union market and other third markets 

(80)  The  investigation  has  confirmed  that  all  three  main  Ukrainian  producers  of  SPT  are 
exporting  the  product  concerned  to  the  Union.  The  investigation  has  further 
established  that  the  cooperating  party  is  exporting  to  the  Union  at  dumped  prices. 
Information  available  in  the  public  domain  further  indicates  that  the  other  main 
Ukrainian producers export SPT to the Union at prices below those of the cooperating 
company.  

4.1.3.5.  Conclusion of the likelihood of continuation of dumping 

(81)  Considering  imports  from  Ukraine  are  still  being  dumped  and  that  export  sales  to 
export markets other than the European Union are made a prices similar or even lower 
than the Union prices and, given the significant spare capacity in Ukraine and the fact 
that  the  Union  market  is  one  of  the  largest  market  in  the  world,  it  can  be  concluded 
that the Ukrainian exporters are likely to further increase their exports to the Union at 
dumped prices should the anti-dumping measures be allowed to lapse. 

4.2. 

Conclusion 

EN 

16 

   EN 

(82) 

In light of the above considerations it is concluded that there is a significant and real 
risk  of  continuation  of  dumping  with  regard  to  seamless  pipes  and  tubes  origination 
from  Ukraine  and  Russia  should  the  existing  measures  lapse.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
particular  circumstances  that  have  been  found  with  regard  to  Croatia  lead  to  the 
conclusion  that  there  is  no  risk  of  continuation  of  dumping  should  the  existing  anti-
dumping  measures  expire  with  regard  to  imports  of  seamless  pipes  and  tubes 
originating in Croatia.  

5. 

UNION PRODUCTION AND UNION INDUSTRY 

(83)  Within the Union, SPT are manufactured by some 19 producers/groups of producers 
which  constitute  the  Union  industry  within  the  meaning  of  Article  4(1)  and  Article 
5(4) of the basic Regulation. 

(84)  As indicated under recital (14), a sample consisting of four producers/producer groups 
companies was selected out of the following 19 Union producers which submitted the 
required information: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Arcelor Mittal Tubular Products Ostrava, Czech Republic, 

Arcelor Mittal Tubular Products Roman S.A., Romania,  

Benteler Stahl/Rohr GmbH, Germany,  

Huta Batory, Poland,  

Ovako Steel AB, Sweden,  

Productos Tubulares S.A., Spain, 

Rohrwerk Max Hütte GmbH, Germany,  

Rurexpol SP.Z.O.O., Poland,  

Silcotub, Romania,  

Tenaris Dalmine S.p.A., Bergamo, Italy,  

Tubos Reunidos S.A., Amurrio, Spain,  

TMK Artrom, Romania,  

Valcovny Trub Chomutov, Czech Republic,  

Vallourec Mannesmann Oil and Gas, France,  

Vitkovice Valcovnatrub AS, Czech Republic,  

V & M Deutschland GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany,  

V & M, France,  

Voest Alpine Tubulars, Austria,  

EN 

17 

   EN 

– 

Zeleziarne Podbrezova, Slovak Republic.  

(85) 

It is noted that the four sampled Union producers accounted for 30% of the total Union 
production during the RIP and 35% of total sales on the EU market, whilst the above 
19 Union producers accounted for 100% of the total Union production during the RIP 
which is considered to be representative of the entire Union production. 

6. 

SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET 

6.1. 

Consumption in the Union market 

(86)  Union  consumption  was  established  on  the  basis  of  the  sales  volumes  of  the  Union 

industry on the Union market, and Eurostat data for all EU imports.  

(87)  On the basis of these data, it was found that the Union consumption decreased by 34% 
from 2.597.110 tonnes to 1.724.743 tonnes between 2008 and the RIP. Consumption 
in  2008  was  very  high,  which  could  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  high  oil  and  gas 
prices  in  2008  encouraged  investments  in  these  sectors  and  therefore  increased  the 
demand.  The  decrease  took  place  fully  in  2009,  in  which  consumption  decreased  by 
almost  50%.  After  2009  consumption  started  increasing  again,  a  trend  which 
continued up to the RIP. 

2008 
Union consumption (in tonnes)  2.597.110 1.345.551 1.609.118  1.724.743
100 

2009 

2010 

Index

RIP 

52 

62 

66 

6.2. 

Imports from the countries concerned 

6.2.1.  Cumulation 

(88) 

(89) 

In  the  previous  investigations,  imports  of  SPT  originating  in  Croatia,  Russia  and 
Ukraine  were  assessed  cumulatively  in  accordance  with  Article  3(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. It was examined whether a cumulative assessment was also appropriate in 
the current investigation. 

In this respect, it was found that the margin of dumping established in relation to the 
imports  from  each  country  was  more  than  de  minimis.  As  regards  the  quantities,  a 
prospective analysis of the likely export volumes by each country, should measures be 
repealed,  was  performed.  It  revealed  that  imports  from  Russia  and  Ukraine,  unlike 
Croatia,  would  likely  increase  to  levels  significantly  above  those  reached  in  the  RIP 
and  certainly  exceed  the  negligibility  threshold,  if  measures  were  repealed.  As  to 
Croatia,  it  was  found  that  imports  into  the  Union  were  negligible  in  the  period 
considered and production has even completely ceased after the RIP. It is thus not very 
likely that on the short term, this situation will change.  

(90)  Given  the  fact  that  the  volume  of  dumped  imports  from  Croatia  during  the  RIP  was 
negligible  and  that  it  is  not  likely  to  increase  due  to  reasons  explained  in  recital  88 
above, it was considered that the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation 
were not met with regard to imports from Croatia.  

(91)  Regarding imports from the three countries concerned, the investigation has found that 
the imported SPT from these countries were alike in their basic physical and technical 
characteristics. Furthermore, the various types of imported SPT were interchangeable 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
with  types  produced  in  the  Union  and  they  were  marketed  in  the  Union  during  the 
same period. In light of the above, it was considered that the imported SPT originating 
in the countries concerned competed with the SPT produced in the Union. 

(92)  On the basis of the above, it was therefore considered that the criteria set out in Article 
3(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation  were  met  with  regard  to  Russia  and  Ukraine.  Imports 
from these two countries were therefore examined cumulatively. Since the criteria set 
in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation and in particular the conditions of competition 
between  imported  products  thereof,  were  not  met  with  regard  to  Croatia,  imports 
originating in this country were examined individually. 

6.3. 

Imports from Russia and Ukraine 

6.3.1.  Volume, market share and prices of imports 

(93)  According  to  Eurostat  data,  the  volume  of  imports  of  the  product  concerned 
originating  in  Russia  and  Ukraine  decreased  by  47%  during  the  period  considered. 
More precisely, a major drop of 44% took place in 2009 and since then imports have 
slightly  decreased  from  40.611  to  38.108  tonnes.  This  has  to  be  seen  against  the 
background of a declining consumption.  

(94)  The  market  share  of  Russian  and  Ukrainian  imports  decreased  from  2.7%  to  2.2% 

during the period considered.  

(95)  As far as the weighted average prices of imports of SPT are concerned, they decreased 
by 15% points in 2009, and then increased again to reach in the RIP the same level as 
in 2008. This decrease and subsequent increase followed roughly the trend of the cost 
of raw materials.  

Import (tonnes) 

Index 

Market share % 

Index 

Price of import 

Index 

2008 
72.328 
100 
2.8% 
100 
741.03 
100 

2009 
40.611 
56 
3.0% 
111 
627.66 
85 

2010 
39.505 
55 
2.5% 
93 
649.96 
88 

RIP 
38.108 
53 
2.2% 
88 
734.22 
99 

6.3.2.  Price undercutting 

(96) 

In  view  of  the  absence  of  cooperation  by  the  Russian  exporting  producers,  price 
undercutting regarding imports from Russia had to be established on import statistics 
by  CN  code  using  information  collected  on  the  basis  of  Article  14(6)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. Price undercutting regarding imports from Ukraine was established using 
the  export  prices  of  the  cooperating  Ukrainian  exporting  producer,  without  anti-
dumping  duty.  The  relevant  sales  prices  of  the  Union  industry  were  those  to 
independent  customers,  adjusted  where  needed  to  an  ex-works  level.  In  the  RIP,  the 
undercutting  margin  for  imports  of  SPT  originating  in  Russia  and  Ukraine  ranged, 
anti-dumping duty excluded, from 20.4% to 55.4%. 

6.4. 

Imports from Croatia 

6.4.1.  Volume, market share and prices of imports from Croatia 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
(97)  According  to  Eurostat  data,  the  volume  of  imports  of  the  product  concerned 
originating  in  Croatia  increased  by  133%  during  the  period  considered.  Very  few 
imports  took  place  in  2008,  then  imports  increased  up  to  2010,  and  in  the  RIP  they 
slightly decreased again. Overall, the level of imports from Croatia has remained very 
low during the whole period considered.  

(98)  The  market  share  of  Croatian  imports  has  increased  from  0.1%  to  0.3%  during  the 

period considered.  

(99)  As far as import prices are concerned, they have decreased steadily by 23% over the 

period considered. 

Imports

index 

Market share % 
Price of import

index 

6.4.2.  Price undercutting 

2008

2009

2010 RIP 

100
0.1%

153
0.2%

251
0.3%

233
0.3%

100

89

74

77

(100)  Price undercutting was established using the export prices of the cooperating Croatian 
producer,  without  anti-dumping  duty,  and  was  found  to  be  29.3%.  In  view  of  the 
absence of any other exporting producer in Croatia, this conclusion is also valid for the 
country as a whole. 

6.5. 

Other country concerned by anti-dumping measures 

(101)  According to Eurostat data, the volume of imports of SPT originating in the People's 
Republic  of  China  as  defined  in  Article  1(1)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  926/200919 
decreased by 80% during the period considered.  

(102)  The  market  share  of  Chinese  imports  decreased  from  20.5%  in  2008  to  3.1%  in  the 

RIP. 

7. 

ECONOMIC SITUATION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY 

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

7.1. 

Preliminary remarks 

(104)  In  view  of  the  fact  that  sampling  was  used  with  regard  to  the  Union  industry,  the 
injury was assessed both on the basis of information collected at the level of the entire 
Union  industry  ('UI')  as  defined  in  recital  (57)  and  on  the  basis  of  information 
collected at the level of the sampled Union producers. 

(105)  Where recourse is made to sampling, in accordance with established practice, certain 
injury  indicators  (production,  capacity,  productivity,  sales,  market  share,  growth  and 

19 

OJ L 262, 6.10.2009, p. 19. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
employment) are analysed for the UI as a whole, while those injury indicators relating 
to  the  performance  of  individual  companies,  i.e.  prices,  costs  of  production, 
profitability,  wages,  investments,  return  on  investment,  cash  flow,  ability  to  raise 
capital  are  examined  on  the  basis  of  the  information  collected  at  the  level  of  the 
sampled Union producers. 

7.2. 

Data relating to the UI  

(a) 

Production 

(106)  The UI’s production decreased by 16% between 2008 and the RIP, i.e. from 3.479.266 
tonnes to 2.917.325 tonnes. Production volume dropped significantly by 43% in 2009 
as  a  consequence  of  the  global  economic  downturn.  In  line  with  the  improved  of 
demand  situation,  it  recovered  in  2010  and  the  RIP  and  increased  by  27%  between 
2009  and  the  RIP,  but  did  not  reach  anymore  the  level  of  2008.  The  production 
volume  showed  a  similar  trend  to  that  of  consumption,  but  decreased  less  than  the 
consumption  on  the  Union  market  as  a  consequence  of  the  demand  on  non-EU 
markets.  

UI 
Production volume (tonnes) 

index

2008

2009

2010  RIP 

3.479.266 1.979.967 2.675.053  2.917.325
84

100

77 

57

(b) 

Capacity and capacity utilisation rates 

(107)  Production  capacity  remained  stable  during  the  period  considered.  As  production 
decreased  by  16%,  the  resulting  capacity  utilisation  declined,  from  80%  in  2008  to 
67% in the RIP. The major decline from 80% to 45% took however place in 2009 as a 
result  of  the  decrease  in  the  production  volume.  In  2010  and  the  RIP  capacity 
utilisation grew steadily.  

UI 
Capacity 

Capacity utilisation 

index

index

(c) 

Stocks 

2008

2009

2010  RIP 

4.334.520 4.378.520 4.332.520  4.357.520
101
67%
83

100 
62% 
77 

100
80%
100

101
45%
56

(108)  As far as stocks are concerned, the vast majority of production is made in response to 
orders.  Therefore,  whilst  the  level  of  stocks  of  the  sampled  producers  decreased 
significantly in 2009 but increased up with slight fluctuation in 2010 to the RIP almost 
to the 2008 level, it is considered that in this case stocks were not a relevant indicator 
of injury.  

Sampled producers 
Closing stock (tonnes) 

2008
106.078
100

index

(d) 

Sales volume 

2009

2010  RIP 

82.788 107.490  104.184 
98 

101 

78

(109)  The  sales  by  the  UI  on  the  Union  market  decreased  by  21%  between  2008  and  the 
RIP. After decreasing by 42% in 2009, sales volume increased again by 21 percentage 
points  up  to  the  RIP.  This  development  is  in  line  with  the  evolution  of  the 

EN 

21 

   EN 

consumption in the Union market, which declined by 48% in 2009 as a result of the 
economic downturn and started recovering afterwards. 

UI 
Sales to unrelated parties in the 
Union (tonnes) 
Index 

(e) 

Market share 

2008 

2009 

2010 

RIP 

1.445.070 841.514 1.060.349  1.135.572
100 

79 

73 

58 

(110)  The UI managed to increase its market share gradually from 2008 up to the RIP. This 
increase is mainly due to the anti-dumping measures that are in place against imports 
from the People's Republic of China since 2009. The market share below is the share 
of  total  sales  of  the  UI,  both  to  unrelated  and  related  customers,  in  the  Union  as  a 
percentage of the EU consumption.  

UI 
Market share  
Index 

(f) 

Growth 

2008 
70.2% 
100 

2009 
78.7% 
112 

2010 
84.5% 
120 

RIP 
85.2% 
121 

(111)  Between 2008 and the RIP, when the Union consumption decreased by 34%, the sales 
volume of the UI decreased by only 21%. The UI thus gained market share, whereas 
the imports from Russia and Ukraine lost 0.6% during the same period. 

(g) 

Employment 

(112)  The  level  of  employment  of  the  UI  declined  by  8%  between  2008  and  the  RIP.  The 
decrease started in 2009, continued in 2010, but in the RIP increased again by 11% in 
relation to 2010. This shows that the UI was able to adapt to the new market situation. 

UI 
Employment 
index 

(h) 

Productivity 

2008 
14.456 
100 

2009 
13.131 
91 

2010 
12.073 
84 

RIP 
13.368 
92 

(113)  Productivity of the UI’s workforce, measured as output per full time equivalent ('FTE') 

employed per year, was volatile over the period considered. 

UI 
Productivity tonnes/per employee 

index 

2008  2009 
240.7 150.8 
100 

63 

2010 
221.6 
92 

RIP 
218.2 
91 

(i) 

Magnitude of dumping margin 

(114)  As concerns the impact on the UI of the magnitude of the actual margins of dumping, 
this  impact  cannot  be  considered  negligible,  in  view  of  the  overall  volume  of  the 
imports from the countries concerned. 

7.3. 

Data relating to the sampled Union producers 

(a) 

Sales prices and factors affecting domestic prices 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
(115)  Unit  sales  prices  of  the  UI  decreased  by  13%  between  2008  and  the  RIP.  Prices 
increased  slightly  in  2009  before  dropping  by  17%  in  2010.  In  the  RIP  prices  went 
slightly up compared to 2010. This price development is linked to the fact that 2008 
was  a  year  with  a  very  high  demand  and  high  prices  of  raw  materials  resulting  in 
higher sales prices. The effects of it could still be felt in the first part of 2009. As from 
the second part of 2009, demand decreased sigificantly and prices dropped following 
the trend of decreasing prices of raw materials. In the RIP the decrease of the prices 
seemed to be stopped.  

Sampled producers 
Average unit sales price in the 
EU (EUR/tonne) 

Index

2008

2009

2010 RIP 

1286
100

1.300
101

1.086
84

1.115 
87 

(b) 

Wages 

(116)  Between 2008 and the RIP, the average wage per FTE decreased by 12% during the 

period considered. No meaningful conclusion should however be drawn.  

(c) 

Investments and ability to raise capital 

(117)  Investments  in  SPT  increased  by  24%  over  the  period  considered.  Investments  were 
significant  and  amounted  to  over  100  million  EUR  in  the  RIP.  SPT  is  a  capital 
intensive  industry  which  requires  significant  investments  in  the  production  lines  in 
order  to  remain  competitive.  The  investigation  revealed  that  the  investments  were 
made to maintain production capacity at its current level and not with the purpose to 
increase the production volume. It was also found that the sampled producers did not 
face difficulties in raising capital over the period considered.  

Sampled producers 
Investments (EUR 1000) 

2008
83.334
100

2009
91.330
110

2010  RIP 

101.775 
122 

103.635
124

index

(d) 

Profitability on the EU market 

(118)  Although  profitability  dropped  by  66%  during  the  period  considered,  the  sampled 
producers  managed  to  achieve  profits  over  the  whole  period  considered.  The  profits 
achieved  from  2008  to  the  RIP  were  above  the  target  profit  of  3%  set  in  the  latest 
investigation. 2008 was a very good year with high profits. In 2009 and also in 2010 
profitability  dropped  by  50%  compared  to  the  previous  year,  but  in  the  RIP 
profitability raised again by 35% compared to 2010 and was 6.6%. The UI managed to 
adapt  to  the  decreased  demand  in  the  EU  and  was  helped  by  the  sustained  global 
demand for the sampled producers that enabled them to dilute fix costs. The drop in 
profitability  after  2008  is  explained  by  the  economic  downturn  which  resulted  in  a 
significant drop of demand, a drop in prices and by a decrease in production volume 
which had a negative impact on cost of production.  

Sampled producers 
Profitability on the EU market 
(%) 

index

2008

2009

2010  RIP 

19.7%
100

9.6%
49

4.9% 
25 

6.7%
34

(e) 

Return on investments 

EN 

23 

   EN 

(119)  The  return  on  investments  (ROI),  expressed  as  the  total  profit  generated  by  the  SPT 
activity as a percentage of the net book value of assets directly and indirectly related to 
the production of SPT, broadly followed the above profitability trends over the whole 
period considered and remained positive during the whole period considered. The ROI 
dropped by 80% during the period considered but in the RIP increased again by 50% 
compared to 2010.  

Sampled producers 
ROI (%) 

2008
30%
100

2009
7%
23

2010  RIP 

4% 
13 

6%
20

index

(f) 

Cash flow 

(120)  The  cash-flow  situation  deteriorated  significantly  between  2008  and  the  RIP,  as  it 
dropped  with  93%.  The  trend  in  cash  flow  did  not  evolve  in  line  with  the  trend  in 
profitability which could be explained by the cost of depreciation, which is typically 
high for this capital intensive industry.  

Sampled producers 
Cash Flow (EUR 1000) 

2008
466.198
100

2009
345.152
74

2010  RIP 

45.562 
10 

33.614
7

index

(g) 

Recovery from the effects of past dumping 

(121)  While  the  indicators  examined  above  show  that  the  UI  suffered  from  the  economic 
downturn  as  sales  volume,  production  volume,  ROI  and  cash  flow  went  down,  they 
also  indicate  that  the  UI  adapted  its  production  equipment  to  better  face  the  new 
economic environment and be able to seize opportunities on EU and non EU markets, 
in particular in segments where high margins can be achieved. The improvement in the 
economic and financial situation of the UI, further to the imposition of anti-dumping 
measures  in  2006  against  imports  from  the  countries  concerned  and  in  2009  against 
imports  from  the  People's  Republic  of  China,  shows  that  the  measures  are  effective 
and  that  the  UI  recovered  from  the  effects of past dumping  practices though has not 
reached any more the profitability level of 2008. 

7.4. 

Conclusion 

(122)  Although  consumption  decreased  by  34%,  the  UI  managed  to  increase  its  market 
share,  and  production  volume  and  sales  volume  decreased  less  than  consumption.  In 
terms of profitability, the UI was profitable throughout the period considered. In view 
of  the  above,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  UI  did  not  suffer  material  injury  over  the 
period considered. 

8. 

LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF INJURY 

(123)  As  explained  in  recitals  69,  70,  77  and  78,  the  exporting  producers  in  Russia  and 
Ukraine have the potential to substantially raise their exports volume to the Union by 
using the available spare capacities of some 1 750 000 tonnes, which equals the entire 
Union  consumption.  The  total  capacity  of  the  exporting  producers  in  Russia  and 
Ukraine amounts to 5 500 000 tonnes. It is therefore likely that substantial quantities 
of Russian and Ukrainian SPT will penetrate the Union market to regain lost market 
share due to the anti-dumping duties in force and increase it further should measures 
be repealed. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

(124)  As highlighted in recital 95 prices of imports from Russia and Ukraine were found to 
be low and to undercut EU prices. These low prices would most likely continue to be 
charged. Indeed in the case of Ukraine, as indicated in recital 80 prices may even drop 
further.  Such  a  price  behaviour,  coupled  with  the  ability  of  the  exporters  in  these 
countries  to  deliver  significant  quantities  of  the  product  concerned  on  the  Union 
market, would in all  likelihood  have a downward  effect  on  prices  in  the  EU  market, 
with  an  expected  negative  impact  on  the  economic  situation  of  the  UI.  As  shown 
above, the financial performance of the UI is closely linked to the price level on the 
EU  market.  It  is  therefore  likely  that  if  the  UI  was  exposed  to  increased  volumes  of 
imports from Russia and Ukraine at dumped prices it would result in a deterioration of 
its financial situation as found in the latest investigation. On this basis, it is concluded 
that  the  repeal  of  the  measures  against  imports  originating  in  Russia  and  Ukraine 
would in all likelihood result in the recurrence of injury to the UI. 

(125)  It is important to recall that antidumping measures were imposed in 2006 to counteract 
the injurious dumping caused by imports from, inter alia, Croatia, Russia and Ukraine. 
However, the UI could not benefit fully from these measures since the market shares 
of these countries have been substituted by low priced Chinese imports. This certainly 
had  an  effect  in  limiting  the  recovery  of  the  UI  until  the  moment  measures  were 
imposed against China in 2009. It can therefore be concluded that the recovery of the 
UI  from  past  dumping  cannot  be  considered  as  complete  and  that  the  UI  remains 
vulnerable  to  the  injurious  effect  possibly  caused  by  the  presence  of  substantial 
quantities of dumped imports in the Union market.  

(126)  As far as Croatia is concerned and as indicated in recital 60, the sole plant is for sale, 
production  has  ceased  completely  and  is  not  likely  to  resume  shortly.  In  addition, 
given the negligible volumes exported to the EU, even if production is to be resumed 
shortly, it is very unlikely that the volume that can be exported to the Union will reach 
the volumes exported in the past.  

(127)  Therefore, in view of the negligible exports in the period considered and the fact that 
production has ceased completely after the RIP, it is concluded that the repeal of the 
measures  on  imports  originating  in  Croatia  would  in  all  likelihood  not  result  in  the 
recurrence of injury to the UI. 

9. 

UNION INTEREST 

9.1. 

Introduction 

(128)  In  compliance  with  Article  21  of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  was  examined  whether 
maintenance of the existing anti-dumping measures against Russia and Ukraine would 
be against the interest of the Union as a whole. The determination of the Union interest 
was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved. It should be recalled 
that, in the previous investigations, the adoption of measures was considered not to be 
against the interest of the Union. Furthermore, the fact that the present investigation is 
a  review,  thus  analysing  a  situation  in  which  anti-dumping  measures  have  already 
been  in  place,  allows  the  assessment  of  any  undue  negative  impact  on  the  parties 
concerned by the current anti-dumping measures. 

(129)  On  this  basis,  it  was  examined  whether, despite the  conclusions on  the likelihood of 
recurrence of injurious dumping, compelling reasons existed which would lead to the 

EN 

25 

   EN 

conclusion  that  it  is  not  in  the  Union  interest  to  maintain  measures  against  imports 
originating in Russia and Ukraine in this particular case. 

9.2. 

Interest of the UI 

(130)  The  UI  has  proven  to  be  a  structurally  viable  industry.  This  was  confirmed  by  the 
positive development of its economic situation observed during the period considered. 
In particular, the fact that the UI increased its market share over the period considered 
is  a  strong  indicator  that  the  UI  managed  to  adapt  to  the  changed  market 
circumstances. Also, the UI remained profitable throughout the period considered.  

(131)  It can reasonably be expected that the UI will continue to benefit if the measures are 
maintained. The imposition of measures will enable the Union industry to increase its 
sales volume and profit level to allow continued investment in its production facilities. 
Should  the  measures  against  imports  originating  in  Russia  and  Ukraine  not  be 
maintained,  it  is  likely  that  the  UI  will  start  again  to  suffer  injury  from  increased 
imports  at  dumped  prices  from  these  countries  and  that  its  financial  situation  will 
deteriorate. 

9.3. 

Interest of importers 

(132)  It  is  recalled  that  in  the  previous  investigations  it  was  found  that  the  impact  of  the 
imposition of measures would not be significant to importers. As indicated in recital 
18,  three  importers  replied  to  the  questionnaire  and  cooperated  fully  in  this 
investigation. They indicated that measures were pushing prices up. However, as the 
investigation showed that the cooperating importers source SPT from various suppliers 
from many different countries and that prices were at competitive levels, the possible 
impact  of  a  continuation  of  measures  on  imports  from  Russia  and  Ukraine  will  be 
limited.  

(133)  In  view  of  the  above,  it  was  concluded  that  the  current  measures  in  force  had  no 
substantial negative effect on their financial situation and that the continuation of the 
measures would not unduly affect the importers.  

9.4. 

Interest of users 

(134)  On the basis of the information available it would appear that the share of SPT in the 
costs  of  production  of  users  is  quite  low.  SPT  are  in  general  part  of  larger  projects 
(boilers, pipelines, construction) of which they form only a limited part. The possible 
impact of a continuation of measures may therefore be not significant. 

(135)  The Commission sent questionnaires to all known users. As mentioned in  recital 18, 
only one user cooperated in this investigation. It indicated that it did not suffer from 
the  existence  of  the  measures  as  other  sources  were  available  and  that  SPT  did  not 
represent a significant share of its cost of production. In this context, it was concluded 
that  given  the  negligible  incidence  of  the  cost  of  SPT  on  the  user  industries  and  the 
existence  of  other  available  sources  of  supply,  the  measures  in  force  do  not  have  a 
significant effect on the user industry. 

9.5. 

Conclusion on Union interest 

EN 

26 

   EN 

(136)  Given  the  above,  it  is  concluded  that  there  are  no  compelling  reasons  against  the 

maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures. 

10. 

ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 

(137)  All  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of 
which  it  is  intended  to  recommend  that  the  existing  measures  be  maintained  on 
imports of the product concerned originating in Russia and Ukraine and be terminated 
with regard to imports originating in Croatia. They were also granted a period to make 
representations subsequent to this disclosure.  

(138)  One Russian exporter requested and was granted a hearing with the Hearing Officer. 
The same Russian exporter argued that the Commission incorrectly concluded that it 
did not cooperate in the investigation. This exporter had come forward as an interested 
party  and  provided  the  Commission  with  two  submissions,  mainly  related  to  injury, 
which were duly taken into consideration by the Commission. However, this exporter 
has not replied to the AD questionnaire and not provided any information regarding its 
export  price.  Therefore  the  Commission  had  no  other  option  but  to  calculate  the 
normal  value  with  regard  to  Russia  based  on  best  facts  available.  The  use  of  this 
methodology  was  not  questioned  by  this  exporter.  Under  these  circumstances  this 
exporter cannot be considered to have fully cooperated in the investigation.  

(139)  The  same  exporter  also  claimed  that  the  disclosure  was  vague,  contradictory  and 

insufficiently motivated. However, this claim was not substantiated.  

(140)  Another Russian exporter argued that imports from Russia should be de-cumulated for 
those  of  Ukraine.  However,  in  the  latest  investigation  imports  from  Russia  and 
Ukraine  were  assessed  cumulatively  (together  with  imports  from  Croatia).  As  the 
conditions of Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation are still met with regard to imports 
from  Russia  and  Ukraine,  the  effects  of  such  imports  were  cumulatively  assessed  as 
set out in recitals (88) to (92). No arguments were brought forward that would justify a 
change in methodology in this respect.  

(141)  Several  interested  parties  argued  that  the  situation  of  the  Union  industry  does  not 
warrant maintenance of the measures as the recurrence of injury is unlikely. However, 
no  new  arguments  were  brought  forward  that  would  lead  to  a  different  conclusion 
regarding the recurrence of injury as set out in recitals (123) to (127) above.  

(142)  It was also argued by several interested parties that the long duration of the measures 
is unjustified and calls for their expiry. In this respect it has to be recalled that this is 
the  first  expiry  review  regarding  the  current  product  scope.  Measures  regarding  this 
product  scope  are  only  in  force  since  2006,  which  cannot  be  considered  as  an 
unjustifiably  long  duration.  Indeed  measures  were  in  force  between  1997  and  2004 
regarding  imports  from  Russia  and  between  2000  and  2004  regarding  imports  from 
Croatia  and  Ukraine,  but  these  measures  concerned  a  much  small  product  scope.  In 
any event, as it has been found in this investigation that the conditions in Article 11(2) 
of  the  basic  Regulation  have  been  met  for  the  continuation  of  the  measures,  the  fact 
that measures may have been in place for a number of years is irrelevant. 

(143)  Finally it was stated that imports from Russia are treated differently than imports from 
Belarus and Croatia, which can be considered discriminatory. This statement does not 
reflect  reality  as  the  situation  with  regard  to  these  countries  is  completely  different. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

The complaint regarding imports from Belarus was withdrawn and the proceeding was 
subsequently  terminated  in  accordance  with  Article  9(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation20. 
Following  disclosure,  no  indications  were  provided  showing  that  such  termination 
would not be in the Union interest. With regard to Croatia, as set out in recitals (63) to 
(65), production in Croatia was ceased.  

(144)  Therefore, it can be concluded that the comments received were not of such nature as 

to change the above conclusions.  

(145)  It  follows  from  the  above  that,  as  provided  for  by  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  the  anti-dumping  measures  applicable  to  imports  of  SPT,  originating  in 
Russia  and  Ukraine  should  be  maintained.  In  opposition,  the  measures  applicable  to 
imports from Croatia should be allowed to lapse, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

(1) 

A  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  imposed  on  imports  of  seamless  pipes  and 
tubes of iron or steel, of circular cross-section, of an external diameter not exceeding 
406,4 mm with a Carbon Equivalent Value (CEV) not exceeding 0,86 according to the 
International  Institute  of  Welding  (IIW)  formula  and  chemical  analysis21,  currently 
falling within CN codes ex 7304 11 00, ex 7304 19 10, ex 7304 19 30, ex 7304 22 00, 
ex 7304 23 00, ex 7304 24 00, ex 7304 29 10, ex 7304 29 30, ex 7304 31 80, ex 7304 
39 58, ex 7304 39 92, ex 7304 39 93, ex 7304 51 89, ex 7304 59 92 and ex 7304 59 
9322  (TARIC  codes  7304  11  00  10,  7304  19  10  20,  7304  19  30  20,  7304  22  00  20, 
7304 23 00 20, 7304 24 00 20, 7304 29 10 20, 7304 29 30 20, 7304 31 80 30, 7304 39 
58 30, 7304 39 92 30, 7304 39 93 20, 7304 51 89 30, 7304 59 92 30 and 7304 59 93 
20) and originating in Russia and Ukraine. 

(2) 

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  produced  by 
the companies below shall be as follows:  

Country  Company 

Russia 

Joint Stock Company Chelyabinsk Tube Rolling Plant and Joint  
Stock Company Pervouralsky Novotrubny Works 

Anti-
dumping 
duty 
% 

TARIC 
additional
code 

24.1 

A741 

20 
21

22 

OJ L XX, xx.yy.2012, p. x.  
The  CEV  shall  be  determined  in  accordance  with  Technical  Report,  1967,  IIW  doc.  IX-555-67, 
published by the International Institute of Welding (IIW). 
As currently defined in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 amending 
Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the 
Common  Customs  Tariff  (OJ  L  282,  28.10.2011,  p.  1).  The  product  coverage  is  determined  in 
combining the product description in Article 1(1) and the product description of the corresponding CN 
codes taken together.  

EN 

28 

   EN 

                                                 
 
OAO Volzhsky Pipe Plant, OAO Taganrog Metallurgical Works, 
OAO Sinarsky Pipe 

27.2 

A859 

Plant and OAO Seversky Tube Works 

All other companies 

Ukraine  OJSC Dnepropetrovsk Tube Works 

LLC Interpipe Niko Tube and OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky 
Tube Rolling Plant (Interpipe NTRP)  

CJSC Nikopol Steel Pipe Plant Yutist 

All other companies 

35.8 

12.3 

17.7 

25.7 

25.7 

A999 

A742 

A743 

A744 

A999 

(3) 

(4) 

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

The  review  proceeding  concerning  imports  of  seamless  pipes  and  tubes  of  iron  or 
steel, of circular cross-section, of an external diameter not exceeding 406,4 mm with a 
Carbon  Equivalent  Value  (CEV)  not  exceeding  0,86  according  to  the  International 
Institute of Welding (IIW) formula and chemical analysis, currently falling within CN 
codes ex 7304 11 00, ex 7304 19 10, ex 7304 19 30, ex 7304 22 00, ex 7304 23 00, ex 
7304 24 00, ex 7304 29 10, ex 7304 29 30, ex 7304 31 80, ex 7304 39 58, ex 7304 39 
92, ex 7304 39 93, ex 7304 51 89, ex 7304 59 92 and ex 7304 59 93 and originating in 
Croatia is hereby terminated.  

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

Article 2 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

29 

   EN