CELEX: 51993PC0143
Language: en
Date: 1993-05-05
Title: Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or non-alloy steel, originating in Hungary, Poland and the Republic of Croatia and definitively collecting provisional anti-dumping duties

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
                                           COM(93) 143 final
                                           Brussels,  5 May 1993
                            Proposal for a
                       COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC)
        imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of
    certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or non-alloy steel,
   originating in Hungary, Poland and the Republic of Croatia and
       definitively collecting provisional anti-dumping duties
                    (presented by the Commission)
 ---pagebreak---                                          - 2 -
                               EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
1. Commission   Regulation      (EEC) No 3296/92 of 12 November           19921    imposed
   provisional    anti-dumping duties on        imports of certain seamless pipes
   and   tubes,    of    iron    or   non-alloy    steel,     originating      in   former
   Czechoslovakia,      now   the    Czech   Republic    and    the  Slovak     Republic,
   Hungary, Poland and the Republic of Croatia.
2. Council  Regulation      (EEC) No 545/93 of 8 March           1993 2 extended     these
   duties for a period of two months. Thus, the provisional duties are due
   to expire on 16 May 1993.
3. All producers/exporters of the countries concerned who have cooperated
   during the investigation, requested and were granted hearings. Most of
   them made also written submissions making known their views regarding
   the   preliminary      findings     of   the     investigation.     The     Commission
   considered,    where   appropriate,     their   oral    and   written   comments    put
   forward before drawing its final conclusions.
4. As no relevant      new evidence on dumping         has been received        since the
   imposition    of   the   provisional    duties,    the    preliminary    findings    on
   dumping  as    set   out    in   Regulation    (EEC)   No   3296/92    are    therefore
   considered to be definitive.
5. In the absence of any new evidence on injury, the Commission confirms
   its preliminary findings in this regard.
6. With  respect    to causality      and to Community      interest, the Commission
   confirms the general considerations as provisionally defined.
   In these circumstances, it is considered that               it is in the Community
   interest   to   impose    definitive    anti-dumping     measures    and   to collect
   definitively provisional anti-dumping duties in order to eliminate the
   injurious effects of the dumped            imports originating      in the Hungary,
1    OJ No L 328, 14.11.1992, p. 15.
2    OJ No L 58, 11.3.1993, p. 1.
 ---pagebreak---                                         - 3 -
    Poland and the Republic of Croatia. Due to the negotiations of trade
    arrangements with regard to the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic,
     it  is considered   not   appropriate,     at  this point     in time,   to take
    protective measures.
7.  Provisional measures took the form of anti-dumping duties. These were
     imposed  at an amount     based on    the price undercutting        found by the
    Commission.    Since   no    arguments     concerning    the    provisional    duty
    calculation method were raised, the preliminary findings are confirmed
    by the Commission. The amounts of the definitive anti-dumping duties
    should therefore be the same as the amounts of the provisional duties.
8.  Having been    informed of the final       results of the      investigation, the
    Hungarian, Polish and Croatian producers/exporters offered undertakings
    within the meaning of Article 10(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88.
    Taking into account that the effect of these undertakings would be that
    the   injurious consequences of the dumped          imports are eliminated and
    that   the Community   industry was      in favour of     their   acceptance, the
    Commission considers the undertakings offered acceptable.
9.  When   the  Member   States    were   consulted    on   the   acceptance   of   the
    undertakings offered, none of them raised objections.
10. In these    circumstances,    the   Commission,    pursuant    to Article    12 of
    Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, proposes to the Council to impose residual
    definitive anti-dumping duties on all other imports of certain seamless
    pipes and tubes, or iron or non-alloy steel, originating in               Hungary,
    Poland and the Republic of Croatia.
11. The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to
    Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92 should be definitively collected               in full
    for imports of the products concerned originating            in Hungary, Poland,
    the Republic of Croatia, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic for
    the period up to 31 December 1992. For imports effected after this date
    these amounts shall be released, taking into account that for all known
    producers, undertakings or other         trade measures will       be applicable,
    which   are considered    to eliminate      injury  caused   by   dumping   to the
    Community industry.
 ---pagebreak---                                   _ 4 -
12. Simultaneously with the Council Regulation, the Commission intends to
    publish a decision accepting undertakings offered by the exporters in
    question.
 ---pagebreak---                                         - 5
                                   Proposal for a
                              COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC)
             imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of
         certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or non-alloy steel,
        originating in Hungary, Poland and the Republic of Croatia and
            definitively collecting provisional anti-dumping duties
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on
protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members
of the European Economic Community1, and in particular Article 12 thereof,
Having    regard   to  the   proposal   from   the   Commission,    submitted   after
consultation within the Advisory Committee as provided for under the above
Regulation,
Whereas:
                                 A. PREVIOUS ACTION
1.  By Regulation     (EEC) No 3296/922, the Commission         imposed  provisional
    ant I-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of
     iron or non-alloy steel, originating in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland
    and    the   Republic   of   Croatia.   The   Council,   by   Regulation    (EEC)
               3
    No 545/93      extended   these  duties   for   a  period   not   exceeding   two
    months.
    Due to the political       changes as from 1 January 1993, the proceeding
    now concerns the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic as successors
    of the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic.
1      OJ No L 209, 2.8.1988, p. 1.
2      OJ No L 328, 14.11.1992, p. 15
3      OJ No L 58, 11.3.1993, p. 1.
 ---pagebreak---                                        - 6 -
                             B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE
2. Following the     imposition of the provisional       anti-dumping    duties, the
   interested parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be
   heard  by   the Commission.     They  also made written       submissions making
   known their views on the findings.
3. The Czech, Slovak and Hungarian exporters alleged that the Commission
   had  failed   to fulfil     its obligations    under   Articles    23, 27(2) and
                                              4
   27(3)(b) of     the   Interim  Agreements     concluded    between   the  European
   Economic Community and the European Coal and Steel Community of the one
   part, and the former Czechoslovakia and Hungary of the other part, on
   trade and    trade-related    matters, by omitting       in particular     duly  to
   inform the Joint Committees set up under the Interim Agreements as it
   was required to do at certain stages of the proceeding.
4. As far as the initiation of the proceeding           is concerned, the Council
   notes that at the time of the initiation of the procedure the Interim
   Agreements had not entered into force and the Joint Committees were not
   established.     The   Commission   therefore    has   notified    the   competent
   authorities of the countries concerned pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) of
   Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of the initiation of the proceeding. After
   the   imposition    of   provisional    duties,   the   Joint    Committees    were
   notified pursuant to Article 27(3)(b) of the Interim Agreements.
5. In this respect some exporters claimed that there was no urgency in
   this case for the Commission to impose provisional anti-dumping duties
   forthwith   and   that   the  Joint  Committees    should    have  been   informed
   pursuant   to Article 27(2) of the        Interim Agreements before adopting
   provisional measures.
6. The results of the preliminary investigation have, however, shown that
   the  dumped    imports   were   causing   material    injury   to  the   Community
   industry. The Council notes that in this case any further delays would
   have considerably     increased this injury so that an urgent         intervention
   in  the   sense    of   Article   27(3)(b)   of   the    Interim   Agreement    was
   indicated.
     Czechoslovakia      : OJ No L 115, 30.4.1992, p. 2.
     Hungary             : OJ No L 116, 30.4.1992, p. 2.
 ---pagebreak---                                             7-
7.  Upon request, the parties were           informed of    the essential     facts and
    considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the
     imposition    of  definitive     duties    and  the   definitive    collection   of
    amounts secured by way of a provisional duty. They were also granted a
    period    within    which    to   make    representations     subsequent    to   the
    disclosure.
8.  The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were examined
    and, where appropriate, considered in the Commission's findings.
9.  This   investigation was not concluded within the period specified                in
    Article 7(9)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 owing to the complexity
    of   the   proceeding    and    to  the    difficulties    of   communication    and
    information-gathering, resulting in numerous requests from the parties
    concerned    for   extensions    of  deadlines,     which   were   granted   by  the
    Commission when justified by the circumstances.
                                C. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY
10. The Hungarian exporter claimed that its products were partly purchased
    by certain complaining Community producers themselves and that those
    producers    should   have   been   excluded    from   the   injury   determination
    pursuant to Article 4(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88.
11. In   that   context,   the   Commission     recalls   its   standing   practice   of
    excluding     importing   Community    producers    only   when   they  are   either
    shielded from the effect of the dumped             imports, draw undue benefits
    from them or import such quantities in relation to their own production
    that they can no longer be considered to be committed to production in
    the Community.
12. In this case the products concerned, originating             in Hungaryt were not
    imported by complaining Community producers themselves, as was alleged.
    Importers    were   certain   trading   companies    with   which   producers   have
    loose ties through a participation or a common holding. The                  imports
    therefore cannot be attributed to the producers themselves.
 ---pagebreak---                                          - 8-
13. With regard to the effects of the dumped              imports brought     in by some
    related   importers, the Commission found that the producers concerned
    could not have benefited from those transactions or have been thereby
    shielded from the effects of dumping. The importers in question did not
    function, as alleged, as sales and distribution subsidiaries on behalf
    of and under the instructions of the complaining producers but operated
     independently   in    competition    with     the   sales   activities    of   those
    producers.   The    imports    in  question     were    made   and   resold   in  the
    Community   under    the   same   conditions     as   other    dumped   imports.   In
    addition, the quantities involved were small in relation to the output
    of  the producers      concerned.   In those      circumstances,     the Commission
    concludes   that  any    advantage    which    may   have   indirectly   accrued   is
    negligible compared to the direct          injury suffered by the producers as
    shown in recitals 36 and 37 and that there are no reasonable grounds
    for excluding those producers from the Community industry. The Council
    confirms this finding of the Commission.
               D. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE PRODUCT
14. The   Commission,     in   recitals    9,    10   and   11   of   Regulation    (EEC)
    No 3296/92,   defined     the   products     which    were   the   subject   of   the
    proceeding. The Hungarian exporter claimed that the Commission should
    have distinguished three different products, namely commercial pipe and
    tubes, line pipe, and cold-drawn or cold-rolled tubes - all three being
    technically different products for different applications.
15. As  is set out by the Commission          in Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92, all
    seamless   tubes   and    pipes   are   manufactured      by  basically    the   same
    production   technology, generating        products which      are alike    in their
    essential physical and technical characteristics and in their end uses.
    While there are some quality differences between these three types of
    tubes, these are not such as to establish clear dividing lines between
    the products. Indeed, the higher-quality tubes can be,                and are, used
    for the same applications as the            lower-grade    tubes. As far as like
    products are concerned, the Commission found that the tubes sold on the
 ---pagebreak---                                            9 -
    Croatian market were similar or         identical to those imported from the
    countries concerned and that the products manufactured and sold by the
    Community     industry  were   also  similar    in all  respects.   Indeed, the
     investigation    of   the   Commission    has   revealed   that  all   products
    regardless of their grade and origin compete with each other              in the
    Community market.
    Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the products concerned were
    to be considered "like products" within the meaning of Article 2(12) of
    Regulation     (EEC) No    2423/88; that    conclusion    is confirmed   by   the
    Counc iI.
                                      E. DUMPING
    1. Normal value
        (a) Croatia
16. As no new evidence has been submitted by the Croatian exporter since
    the   imposition of provisional       duties, the findings on dumping with
    regard   to Croatia, as set out         in Regulation   (EEC) No 3296/92, are
    considered to be definitive.
        (b) Hungary, Poland and former Czechoslovakia
17. The Commission     considered    Hungary, Poland    and  former  Czechoslovakia
    during    the   investigation    period   as   non-market   economies  and,    in
    accordance with Article 2(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, based its
    determinations on the normal        values of the products concerned        in a
    market economy country - in this case Croatia.
18. Most of the Hungarian, Polish, Czech and Slovak producers contested
    that determination by the Commission and claimed once again that their
    domestic prices or production costs should be taken into consideration,
    since their economies had reached a stage where they had to be treated
    as market economies.
 ---pagebreak---                                          - 10 -
19. The Commission considers that the fact that during the investigation
    period they were still       listed as State-trading countries according to
    Council   Regulation    (EEC) No 1765/825, as         last amended by Regulation
    (EEC) No 848/92 6 , is decisive, and accordingly            that Article 2(5) of
    Regulation    (EEC) No    2423/88     is applicable     to  the   determination of
    normal value for those contries. The Council confirms this finding.
20. Several parties to the proceeding claimed that the Commission should
    have taken account of the change of circumstances due to the removal of
    those countries from the         list of State-trading       countries by Council
                                     7
    Regulation (EEC) No 517/92 , which entered             into force    in March 1992,
    namely by updating the investigation period.
21. The Commission notes that the removal of the countries concerned from
    the list of State-trading countries by Regulation (EEC) No 517/92 took
    effect on 1 March 1992, i.e. after the investigation period determined
    pursuant to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 which is the
    basis   for    the   anti-dumping     proceeding     and   the   findings   of  the
    Commission. As was stated        in recital 19, this leads to the conclusion
    that, in the present case, the countries concerned had to be treated as
    State   trading    economies.    Matters    would   be   quite  different    if the
    Commission    had   to fix   a new     investigation period     situated   entirely
    after the abovementioned date.
22. The Hungarian exporter contested once again the choice of Croatia as a
    suitable    analogous    market     economy,    alleging    that    the  particular
    difficulties this country was and           is facing, the differences       in the
    production technology and an unrepresentative product mix and market
    made it an inappropriate choice. No evidence for these allegations was,
    however,   produced.     As   an   alternative     for   Croatia,    the  Hungarian
    exporter proposed Venezuela.
23. As far as Venezuela      is concerned, the Commission has information that
    the main production plant was shut down three years ago. Supplies of
    seamless   tubes to the domestic market           in Venezuela     are principally
    covered   by    imports.   That    country    cannot    therefore    be  considered
    suitable.
5     OJ No L 195, 5.7.1982, p. 1
6     OJ No L 89, 4.4.1992, p. 1.
7     OJ No L 56, 29.2.1992, p. 1
 ---pagebreak---                                          - 11 -
24. As far as Croatia      is concerned, the information made available to the
    Commission   shows    that   during    the   investigation   period   the Croatian
    exporter   was   producing     normally.    Sales   activities   on  the    domestic
    market    continued     throughout      the    investigation    period    and   were
    representative in relation to the exports concerned. As was explained
     in recital 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92, prices charged showed a
    reasonable    level    in   relation    to   production   costs.   For   the   above
    reasons, the Council confirms the conclusion of the Commission that it
    was   appropriate    and    not   unreasonable     to  apply   the  normal    values
    established    for Croatia to the Czechoslovak Ian, Hungarian and Polish
    products.
25. The Hungarian exporter claimed further that the Commission should not
    have   used   the   domestic     price    lists  of   the  Croatian    producer   to
    establish normal value but should have used actual sales prices.
26. As   is explained    in recital     14 of Regulation      (EEC) No 3296/92, the
    Commission established that actual sales of the Croatian producer were
    made   in conformity with       the price     lists. The Council    confirms this
    f i ndIng.
    2. Export price
27. Export   prices   for   all   four   exporting    countries   were  determined    as
    explained   in recital 23 of Regulation          (EEC) No 3296/92, and,       in the
    absence of any relevant new arguments, are considered definitive.
    3. Comparison
28. Normal values and export prices were compared in the manner set out in
    recital 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92.
29. Some of the exporters claimed adjustments on behalf of differences in
    quality between their products exported to the Community and those sold
    by the Croatian producer on his domestic market.
 ---pagebreak---                                                42 -
     30. No evidence was, however, produced showing, within the same categories
         of tubes, any relevant differences in physical characteristics of the
         products    manufactured    in   Poland,    Hungary,   former   Czechoslovakia,
         Croatia or in the Community which would affect the comparison carried
         out by the Commission. The claim is, therefore, to be dismissed in
         accordance with Article 2(9)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88.
   I 31. Some exporters submitted that normal values should have been adjusted
         for differences in selling costs such as salesmen's salaries and for
         sales made In different quantities.
 \
     32. On the basis of the evidence made available to the Commission by the
         Croatian producer, allowances have been made for all               identifiable,
         directly related selling costs incurred at the level of trade on which
\
         the comparison was based. The Comission had no Indication - nor did the
         Croatian company claim- that it had incurred allowable expenses for
         salesmen    directly    involved   in   the   distribution   of   the   products
         concerned. Instead of volume rebates, the Croatian company operates a
         system of graduated supplements of up to 20% for shipments of less than
         a threshold quantity. As most export sales exceeded that quantity, the
         Commission, for      the purpose of      comparison, has disregarded        these
         supplements in respect of all export sales.
     33. The   Hungarian   exporter    alleged    that   the  Commission     had  used   a
         government    fixed   exchange    rate   for   the  Yugoslav    dinar   for   the
         conversion of normal value and export prices. This is not the case.
         Contrary to the situation in Hungary, where a government fixed rate for
         commercial transactions was operated untiI October 1991, the Yugoslav
         dinar   was   floating    throughout    the   investigation   period    and   the
         Commission    has   used   the   free   market    rate  as   recorded    by   the
         International Monetary Fund.
 ---pagebreak---                                            - 13 -
    4. Dumping margins
34. The final examinât ion of the facts reveals the existence of dumping for
    the Croatian producer, zeIjezara Stsak, as well as for the products
    concerned exported by Hungary, Poland and former Czechoslovakia. The
    margins of dump ing wh ich vary accord Ing to the exporter are equaI to
    the amount     by which     the normal     values, as established, exceed            the
    prices for export to the Community;
35. The weighted average margins of dumping definitively established and
    expressed as a percentage of the cif Community frontier prices of the
     imports are as follows:
    -    ZeIJezara SIsak, Croatia                 25.5%
    -    Hungary                                  21.8*
    -    Poland                                   11.7%
    -    the Czech Republic                       49.6%
    -    the Slovak Republic                      49.6%
                                         F. INJURY
36. In    its   preliminary     findings,     the  Commission    concluded     that      the
    Community seamless tube industry had suffered material              injury from the
    cumulated effects of the dumped imports from the countries concerned.
    This view was founded mainly on the convergence of economic indicators
    such as the decline of production and sales volume, the significant
    loss of market       share, depression of prices          In a period of         rising
    production costs and consequent deterioration in financial results.
37. As far as the situation Of the Community industry is concerned, no new
    a r gument s we r e pu t f or wa r d after the I mr>os 11 ton of • p# ov i si * m a I »• ffo*t ies
    The Council therefore confirms the findings set out In recitals 36 to
    42 of Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92.
 ---pagebreak---                                      ••* 14 -
                                  G. CNJSAUTY
38. The Polish and Hungarian exporters argued that their exports did not
    follow the same pattern as those of the other countries concerned and
    that    therefore   the  Commission    should   not   have  established   the
    cumulative impact of their dumped imports on the Community industry.
39. Contrary    to this allegation, the Commission established          that the
     increase in market share of those countries is considerable and the
    market share as such not negligible. In addition, the exporters of both
    countries resorted to undercutting practices        to gain those increased
    market shares. They followed, therefore, a similar pattern of market
    strategies. For these and the reasons given in recitals 27 and 28 of
    Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92, the Commission concludes, and the Council
    confirms, that the impact of the dumped imports has to be established
    cumulatively.
40. As far as price undercutting is concerned, several exporters alleged
    that, in the comparison of their resale prices in the Community with
    prices charged by the Community industry, certain adjustments made in
    the provisional determination underestimated the level of the actual
    costs    incurred.   The  Commission    established,   however,  that   those
    adjustments    corresponded   to   the  normal   transaction  costs   at  the
    comparable level of trade.
41. With regard to other factors such as changes in demand, the influence
    of   other   imports and    restructuring   problems, the Commission      has
    analysed the situation in recital 47 of Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92,
    which is hereby confirmed by the Council.
42. In the absence of further arguments, the Council confirms the findings
    of the Commission set out in recitals 44 to 48 of Regulation (EEC)
    No 3298/92.
 ---pagebreak---                                       - 15 -
                             H. COMMUNITY INTEREST
43. Several exporters argued that      in view of the special relations of the
    Community  with   Hungary,   Poland,   the Czech Republic       and   the  Slovak
    Republic, as reflected     in various agreements between the contracting
    parties and   in particular the Interim Agreements on trade and trade-
    related matters concluded by the Community with those countries, it is
    not in the Community's interest to impose anti-dumping measures. To do
    so  would  bring   exports   to  a  halt   and  prevent    the   countries    from
    developing  and diversifying     trade with    the Community,      which   is the
    declared interest of the Community in its relations with them.
44. In this context, the Commission notes that the agreements explicitly
    provide for the application of anti-dumping measures. The Commission
    accepts that anti-dumping measures should not normally preclude certain
    exporters from trading with the Community.         Indeed, given the specific
    circumstances of the present case, the Commission calculated the anti-
    dumping measures in such a way as to eliminate the price undercutting,
    thus ensuring    that  fair   competition   was   restored   on   the   Community
    market without reducing the overall level of competition.
45. No observations were received from any user of the products concerned
    imported  from Hungary, Poland, Croatia,        the Czech Republic       and   the
    Slovak  Republic   within   the  time   limit   laid   down   in Article     3 of
    Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92. The general considerations with regard to
    "Community   interest"   (see   recitals   49   to   53  of  Regulation      (EEC)
    No 3296/92) are accordingly confirmed by the Council.
46. In the circumstances, the Council considers that it is in the Community
    interest to impose definitive anti-dumping measures to eliminate the
    injurious  effects of dumped imports.
 ---pagebreak---                                      •- 16 -
                                     I. DUTY
47. Provisional measures took the form of anti-dumping duties. They were
    imposed at rates based on the price undercutting recorded by the
    Commission.   No  arguments   were    raised concerning this  method  of
    calculating the duty. The findings of the Commission as expressed In
    recitals 34 and 35 of Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92 being confirmed by
     the Council, the amounts of the definitive anti-dumping duties should
     be the same as the amounts of the provisional duties.
                                J. UNDERTAKINGS
 48. Having tfoçn informed of the final results of the investigation, the
      Polish, Hungarian, Croatian exporters offered undertakings within the
      meaning of Article 10(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88.
      Following consultations within the Advisory Committee, during which no
      objections were raised to this solution, the undertakings were accepted
                                   8
      by Commission Decision         .
                          K. PROCEEDING WITH REGARD TO
                   THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC
 49. In light of the negotiations of trade arrangements with the Czech
      Republic and the Slovak Republic for the years 1993 to 1995 with regard
      to certain sensitive steel products Including welded and seamless tubes
      comprising also the products covered by this proceeding, it is not
      appropriate, at this point in time to take protective measures with
      regard to the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic.
        See page .... of this Officiel Journal
 ---pagebreak---                                        - 17 -
                      L. COLLECTION OF PROVISIONAL DUTIES
50. In view of the level of dumping margins found and thç seriousness of
    the injury caused to Community producers, it is considered necessary
    that amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties should
    be collected    in full    with   regard  to all    imports of    the products
    concerned, originating in Hungary, Poland, the Republic of Croatia, the
    Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic for the period up to 31 December
    1992. For    imports effected after      that  date   the amounts should     be
    released, since for all known producers undertakings or other trade
    measures will be applicable and are considered to eliminate the injury
    caused by dumping to the Community industry,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
                                     Article 1
1.     A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on the following
        imports:
       -   seamless pipes, of iron or steel, of a kind used for oil or gas
           pipelines,   of  an    external   diameter    not   exceeding   406.4mm
           (falling within CN codes 7304 10 10 and 7304 10 30);
       -   seamless tubes of circular cross-section, of iron or non-alloy
           steel, cold-drawn or      cold-rolled, other      than precision   tubes
           (falling within CN code 7304 31 9 9 ) ; and
       -   other  tubes of    circular   cross-section, of      iron or  non-alloy
           steel, other than threaded or threadable, of an external diameter
           not exceeding 406.4 mm (falling within CN codes 7304 39 91 and
           7304 39 93);
       originating in    Hungary, Poland and Croatia.
2.     The   rate of   the duty    applicable   to the net      free-at-Commun ity-
       frontier price for imports of the products concerned, originating in
       the following countries, not cleared through customs, shall be:
 ---pagebreak---    &                             - 48 -
                                        Rate of duty    Taric additional
                                                             codes
          Hungary                           21.7%            8718
          PoI and                           10.8%            8720
          Croatia                           17.4%            8722
3.   Notwithstanding paragraph    1, the duty    shall  not  apply   to the
     products concerned manufactured or exported by:
     HUNGARY:
     Csepel Tube Works, Budapest        (Taric additional code 8717)
     POLAND :
     Centrozap, Foreign Trade
     Company Ltd., Katowice             (Taric additional code 8719)
     Huta Andrzej, Zawadzkie            (Taric additional code 8719)
     Stalexport, Foreign Trade
     Enterprise, Katowice               (Taric additional code 8719)
     Huta im M. Buczka, Sosnowiec       (Taric additional code 8719)
     Huta Czestochowa, Czestochowa      (Taric additional code 8719)
     Huta Jednosc, Siemianowice SI.     (Taric additional code 8719)
     Huta Batory s.a., Chorzow          (Taric additional code 8719)
     CROATIA:
     ZeIjezara Sisak
     Sisak Steel Pipe Works, Zagreb     (Taric additional code 8721)
4.   The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
 ---pagebreak---                                    - 19 -
                                 Article 2
The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to
Regulation (EEC) No 3296/92 shall be definitively collected     in full for
imports of the products concerned, originating     in Hungary, Poland, the
Republic of Croatia, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic for the
period up to 31 December 1992. For imports effected after this date the
amounts shall be released.
                                 Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its
publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable In
all Member States.
Done at Brussels,                                  For the Council
                                                    The President
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---                                                   20 -
                                                                     ISSN 0254-1475
                                                              COM(93) 143 final
                                                       DOCUMENTS
EN                                                                         i l 02
                                 Catalogue number : CB-CO-93-168-EN-C
                                                             ISBN 92-77-54429-5
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
L-2985 Luxembourg