HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
4.9.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
238/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 795/2012
of 28 August 2012
amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine,
following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
(2) Following
an
application
by
Interpipe
for
the
annulment
of Regulation (EC) No 954/2006, on 10 March 2009 the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities
annulled Article 1 of that Regulation in so far as the
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
anti-dumping duty fixed for Interpipe exceeded that
Union,
which would have been applicable had the export price
not been adjusted for a commission when sales took
place through the intermediary of the affiliated trader,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
Sepco SA ( 3 ). On 16 February 2012 the Court of
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
Justice of the European Union upheld the judgment of
from countries not members of the European Community (
the Court of First Instance (

1 )

4 ).
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) and
Article 11(3), (5) and (6) thereof,
(3) Following
these
judgments,
the
Council
amended
Regu
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
lation (EC) No 954/2006 by means of Implementing
Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
Regulation (EU) No 540/2012 ( 5 ) to correct the anti-
dumping duty imposed on Interpipe in so far as it had
been erroneously established. Accordingly, the anti-
dumping duty currently in force for Interpipe is 17,7 %.
Whereas:
1. PROCEDURE
(4) By
Implementing
Regulation
(EU)
No
585/2012
( 6 ) the
1.1. Measures in force
Council, following an expiry review, maintained the

measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 on
(1) By
Regulation
(EC)
No
954/2006
(
imports of seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel,

2 ) the Council,
following an investigation (‘the original investigation’),
originating in Russia and Ukraine (‘the expiry review
imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
investigation’).
certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, orig
inating in Croatia, Russia and Ukraine. The measures
consisted of an ad valorem anti-dumping duty ranging
between 12,3 % and 25,7 % imposed on imports from
individually named exporting producers in Ukraine, with
(5) Accordingly,
the
measures
currently
in
force
are
those
a residual duty rate of 25,7 % on imports from all other
established by Implementing Regulation (EU) No
companies in Ukraine. The definitive anti-dumping duty
585/2012, i.e. between 24,1 % and 35,8 % for imports
imposed on the exporter subject to the current review
from Russia and between 12,3 % and 25,7 % for imports
investigation, CJSC Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant
from Ukraine, with Interpipe having an anti-dumping
Niko Tube and OJSC Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling
duty of 17,7 %.
Plant, now named LLC Interpipe Niko Tube and OJSC
Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (‘the
( 3 ) T-249/06 — Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe NTRP v Council, 2009
applicant’ or ‘Interpipe’), was 25,1 %.
II-00383.
( 4 ) Joined cases C-191/09 P and C-200/09 P — Council and Commission
v Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe NTRP.
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
( 5 ) OJ L 165, 26.6.2012, p. 1.
( 2 ) OJ L 175, 29.6.2006, p. 4.
( 6 ) OJ L 174, 4.7.2012, p. 5.

---

L 238/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
4.9.2012
1.2. Request for a partial interim review
2.2. Like product
(6) On
29
July
2011,
the
Commission
announced
by
a (13) As established in the original investigation as well as in
notice published in the Official Journal of the European
the expiry review investigation, the current investigation
Union the initiation (‘Notice of initiation’) ( 1 ) of a partial
confirmed that the product produced in Ukraine and
interim review, pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic
exported to the Union, the product produced and sold
Regulation, of the anti-dumping measures applicable to
on the domestic market of Ukraine and the product
imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or
produced and sold in the Union by the Union
steel, originating in Ukraine.
producers have the same basic physical and technical
characteristics and end uses. These products are
(7) The
review,
which
is
limited
in
scope
to
the
examination
therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of
of dumping, was initiated following a substantiated
Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
request lodged by Interpipe. In the request, Interpipe
provided prima facie evidence that the continued
imposition of the measures at the current level is no
3. DUMPING
longer necessary to offset injurious dumping.
3.1. Preliminary remarks
1.3. Investigation
(14) Interpipe
has
two
fully
owned
and
controlled
exporting
producers, LLC Interpipe Niko Tube (Niko Tube) and
(8)
The investigation of the level of dumping covered the
OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant
period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 (‘the
(Interpipe NTRP). In line with the Union institutions’
review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’).
standard practice, one common dumping margin was
calculated for the two exporting producers. The
amount of dumping was first calculated for each indi
(9) The
Commission
officially
informed
the
applicant,
the
authorities of the exporting country and the Union
vidual exporting producer before determining a single
industry of the initiation of the partial interim review.
weighted average rate of dumping for both companies.
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.
(15) This methodology,
however, was different from the
methodology applied in the original investigation,
where the common dumping margin was calculated by
(10) In
order
to
obtain
the
information
necessary
for
its
inves
collapsing all data relating to production, profitability
tigation, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the
and sales in the Union of the two producing entities.
applicant, which responded within the given deadline.
The change in circumstances that warrants this change
in methodology consists in a marked change in the
(11) The
Commission
sought
and
verified
all
information
it
corporate structure of the group enabling the identifi
deemed necessary for the purpose of determining the
cation of the relevant production company with respect
level of dumping. Verification visits were carried out at
to sales and production, which was not possible in the
the premises of the applicant and at its related trading
original investigation.
companies LLC Interpipe Ukraine and Interpipe Europe
SA.
(16) Furthermore,
in
the
original
investigation,
an
adjustment
pursuant to Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation was
2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
made in respect of Interpipe’s energy costs in order to
2.1. Product concerned
reasonably reflect the costs associated with the

production and sale of electricity and gas in Ukraine.
(12) The product concerned is the same as that defined in
This adjustment was deemed necessary due to the fact
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 which
that Ukrainian gas and electricity prices, at the time, were
imposed the measures currently in force, namely
significantly lower than the average price paid in the
seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel (SPT), of
Union and did not reflect international market prices.
circular cross-section, of an external diameter not
The adjustment was based on the average prices
exceeding 406,4 mm with a Carbon Equivalent Value
observed in Romania, which at that time formed part
(CEV) not exceeding 0,86 according to the International
of the investigation.
Institute of Welding (IIW) formula and chemical analy
sis ( 2 ), originating in Ukraine, currently falling within CN
codes ex 7304 11 00, ex 7304 19 10, ex 7304 19 30,
(17) However,
contrary
to
the
original
investigation,
it
is
ex 7304 22 00,
ex 7304 23 00,
ex 7304 24 00,
considered that an energy adjustment is not deemed
ex 7304 29 10,
ex 7304 29 30,
ex 7304 31 80,
necessary for the purpose of the current interim review.
ex 7304 39 58,
ex 7304 39 92,
ex 7304 39 93,
The investigation has shown that the average Ukrainian
ex 7304 51 89, ex 7304 59 92 and ex 7304 59 93 (‘the
energy prices have increased steadily since the original
product concerned’).
investigation, at a much higher rate than the average
prices in the European Union, thus gradually bridging
the gap between them. The considerable price difference
( 1 ) OJ C 223, 29.7.2011, p. 8.
in energy costs that was found during the original inves
( 2 ) The CEV shall be determined in accordance with Technical Report,
1967, IIW doc. IX-555-67, published by the International Institute
tigation and warranted an adjustment is therefore
of Welding (IIW).
currently not present.

---

EN
4.9.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
238/3
(18) Accordingly,
it
is
not
considered
appropriate
to
make
an
of export sales to the Union or were not sold at all in the
energy adjustment in this interim review.
domestic market) was calculated on the basis of the cost
of manufacturing per product type plus an amount for
selling, general and administrative costs and for profits.
3.2. Dumping of imports during the RIP
In case of existing domestic sales, the profit of trans
actions in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic
3.2.1. Normal value
market per product type for the product types concerned
was used. Where there were no domestic sales, an
(19) In
accordance
with
Article
2(2)
of
the
basic
Regulation
it
average profit was used. This change in methodology
was first examined whether each exporting producers’
was due to the fact that, following the original investi
total volume of domestic sales of the like product to
gation, a WTO Panel issued, and the WTO Dispute
independent customers was representative in comparison
Settlement Body adopted a report in the case European
with its total volume of export sales to the Union, i.e.
Communities — Anti-dumping Measure on Farmed Salmon
whether the total volume of such sales represented at
from Norway ( 1 ), which provides that the actual profit
least 5 % of the total volume of export sales of the
margin established for the transactions in the ordinary
product concerned to the Union. The examination estab
course of trade of the relevant product types for which
lished that the domestic sales were representative for
normal value has to be constructed cannot be
both exporting producers.
disregarded.
(20) It
was
further
examined
whether
each
product
type
of
the like product sold by the exporting producers on its
(25) After disclosure of the final conclusions, the two
domestic market were sufficiently representative for the
exporting producers argued that idle costs should not
purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation.
have been included in their total manufacturing costs
Domestic sales of a particular product type were
of the product concerned during the RIP, claiming that
considered sufficiently representative when the total
this was in breach of Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation
volume of that product type sold by the applicant on
and in contradiction with the accounting principles set
the domestic market to independent customers during
out under the International Accounting Standards (IAS)
the RIP represented at least 5 % of its total sales
and IAS 2 in particular. With regard to Article 2(5) of
volume of the comparable product type exported to
the basic Regulation it should be noted that under that
the Union.
Article, when it is considered that costs associated with
the production of the product concerned are not
reasonably reflected in the records of the party
(21) In
accordance
with
Article
2(4)
of
the
basic
Regulation
it
concerned, they are to be adjusted. The fact that the
was subsequently examined whether the domestic sales
company did not operate at its full capacity implied
of each product type that had been sold in representative
that costs were, however, incurred. Indeed, such costs
quantities could be regarded as being made in the
were recorded as a cost in the income statement of the
ordinary course of trade. This was done by establishing
two exporting companies and could directly be linked to
the proportion of profitable domestic sales to inde
the like product. Furthermore, reference to IAS 2 was
pendent customers on the domestic market for each
found to be irrelevant because the objective of IAS 2 is
exported type of the product concerned during the RIP.
to prescribe the accounting treatment for inventories and
does not determine what should be considered as cost of
manufacturing. The claim was therefore rejected.
(22) For
those
product
types
where
more
than
80
% by
volume of sales on the domestic market of the product
type were above cost and for which the weighted average
sales price was equal to, or above the unit cost of
(26) The
same
exporting
producers
also
claimed
that
certain
production, normal value, by product type, was
financial expenses resulting from loans, which were
calculated as the weighted average of the actual
included in the Selling, General and Administrative
domestic prices of all sales of the type in question, irre
expenses, should have been excluded. They claimed that
spective of whether those sales were profitable or not.
these loans were taken to satisfy the needs for liquidity
and short-term financing of the company and they were
not related to the production of the product concerned.
During the verification visit it was indeed found that the
(23) Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type
interest expenses were mainly related to finance the
represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that
working capital. Therefore, interest costs were allocated
type, or for which the weighted average price was below
to all products. The exporting producers could not
the unit cost of production, normal value was based on
demonstrate that the interest expenses were specifically
the actual domestic price, which was calculated as a
made for other purposes than to finance the working
weighted average price of only the profitable domestic
capital. The two exporting producers could not provide
sales of that type made during the RIP.
any further evidence to substantiate their claim and this
claim was therefore rejected.
(24) The
normal
value
for
the
non-representative
types
(i.e.
( 1 ) WT/DS337/R of 16 November 2007 — adopted by the Dispute
those of which domestic sales constituted less than 5 %
Settlement Body on 15 January 2008.

---

L 238/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
4.9.2012
3.2.2. Export price
4. LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES
(27) All exports of the product concerned by the two
(32) In
its
request
for
a
partial
interim
review,
the
applicant
exporting producers to the Union were made through
claimed that changes in the corporate structure and
a related trading company located in Switzerland
production organisation, as well as a restructuring of
directly to independent customers in the Union. The
the sales organisation on both the domestic and export
export price was therefore established on the basis of
markets, had had an impact on its cost structure and
export prices actually paid or payable in accordance
that, therefore, the existing level of the anti-dumping
with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.
duty was no longer necessary in order to offset
injurious dumping.
3.2.3. Comparison
(33) Accordingly,
it
was
investigated
whether
the
change
in
circumstances that led to the initiation of the interim
(28) It is recalled that in the original investigation an
review and the result thereof can reasonably be
adjustment was made to the export price under
considered to be of a lasting nature.
Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation in the cases

where sales were made through related traders.
However, in line with the judgment of the Court of
(34) The investigation established that the main factors
leading to the lower dumping margin found in the
Justice mentioned in recital 2, which held that the
review investigation are changes in the corporate organi
adjustment was not warranted, no such adjustment has
sation, which include a merger between two production
been made in this interim review.
companies, and a restructuring of the sales organisation,
which has been streamlined. These changes, which have
(29) The
normal value
and
the
export
price
of the
two
affected the cost structure of the applicant for the
exporting producers were compared on an ex-works
production and selling of the product concerned, are of
basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison
a structural nature and thus unlikely to change in the
between the normal value and export price, due
foreseeable future. Moreover, there were no indications of
allowance in the form of adjustments was made for
significant volatility in the applicant’s prices.
differences affecting prices and price comparability in
accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
(35) It
was
therefore
concluded
that
the
changes
are
of
a
On this basis, adjustments were made in respect of
lasting nature and that the application of the existing
transport costs, rebates and discounts, commissions and
measures at their current level is no longer necessary,
credit costs.
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
3.2.4. Dumping margin
Article 1
(30) Pursuant
to
Article
2(11)
and
(12)
of
the
basic
Regu
The entry concerning LLC Interpipe Niko Tube and OJSC
lation, the weighted average normal value was
Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (Interpipe
compared with the weighted average export price per
NTRP) in the table of Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation
product type on an ex-work basis separately for each
(EU) No 585/2012 is hereby replaced by the following:
of the two exporting producers. As mentioned in
recital 14, one common dumping margin is subsequently
established for Interpipe by calculating a single weighted
LLC Interpipe Niko Tube and OJSC Interpipe 13,8 % A743
average rate of dumping for both exporting producers
Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (Interpipe
NTRP)
within Interpipe.
Article 2
(31) On
this basis, the dumping margin, expressed
as a
percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that
unpaid, is 13,8 %.
of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 August 2012.
For the Council
The President
A. D. MAVROYIANNIS

---

Document Outline

• �

---