HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
28.12.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
357/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1269/2012
of 21 December 2012
amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
imports of certain seamless steel pipes, of iron or steel, originating, inter alia, in Russia, following a
partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
(2) By
Regulation
(EC)
No
812/2008
( 3 ) the Council,
following the initiation of an interim review requested
by the TMK Group pursuant to Article 11(3) of the
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
basic Regulation (‘the review investigation’), amended
Union,
the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain
seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, to 27,2 % for
the TMK Group.
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
(3) By
Implementing
Regulation
(EU)
No
585/2012
(
from countries not members of the European Community (

4 ) the

1 )
Council, following an expiry review (‘the expiry review
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) and
investigation’), maintained the measures imposed by
Article 11(3), (5) and (6) thereof,
Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 on imports of seamless
pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia
and Ukraine.
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
Commission (‘the Commission’) after consulting the Advisory
Committee,
(4) Accordingly,
the
measures
currently
in
force
are
those
imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012.
The TMK Group composed of OAO Volzhsky Pipe Plant,
Whereas:
OAO Taganrog Metallurgical Works, OAO Sinarsky Pipe
Plant and OAO Seversky Tube Works is subject to an
anti-dumping duty of 27,2 %.
1. PROCEDURE
1.1. Measures in force
1.2. Initiation of a partial interim review
(1) By
Regulation
(EC)
No
954/2006
( 2 ) the Council,
(5) On
14
October
2011,
the
Commission
announced
by
a
following an investigation (‘the original investigation’),
notice published in the Official Journal of the European
imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
Union (‘notice of initiation’) ( 5 ) the initiation of a partial
certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, orig
interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic
inating in Croatia, Romania, Russia and Ukraine. The
Regulation of the anti-dumping measures applicable to
measures consisted of an ad valorem anti-dumping duty
imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or
of 24,1 % imposed on imports from individually named
steel, originating in Russia.
exporting producers in Russia, with a residual duty rate
of 35,8 % on imports from all other companies in
Russia. The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on
(6) The
review,
which
is
limited
in
scope
to
the
examination
the group subject to the current review investigation,
of dumping, was initiated following a substantiated
OAO TMK (‘the TMK Group’ or ‘the applicant’)
request lodged by the TMK Group. In the request the
composed of OAO Volzhsky Pipe Plant, OAO
applicant provided prima facie evidence that the
Taganrog Metallurgical Works, OAO Sinarsky Pipe
continued imposition of the measures at the current
Plant and OAO Seversky Tube Works was 35,8 %, i.e.
level is no longer necessary to offset injurious dumping.
the residual duty.
( 3 ) OJ L 220, 15.8.2008, p. 1.
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
( 4 ) OJ L 174, 4.7.2012, p. 5.
( 2 ) OJ L 175, 29.6.2006, p. 4.
( 5 ) OJ C 303, 14.10.2011, p. 11.

---

L 357/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
28.12.2012
1.3. Parties concerned
3. DUMPING
(7) The
Commission
officially
informed
the
applicant,
the
3.1. Dumping of imports during the RIP
authorities of the exporting country and the Union
industry of the initiation of the partial interim review.
3.1.1. Normal value
Interested parties were given the opportunity to make
their views known in writing and to request a hearing
(13) Sales
on
the
domestic
market
were
made
via
the
related
within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.
companies, ZAO TMK Trade House and TMK Ware
house, which resold SPT to independent customers in
Russia.
(8) In
order
to
obtain
the
information
necessary
for
its
inves
tigation the Commission sent a questionnaire to the
(14) In
accordance
with
Article
2(2)
of
the
basic
Regulation
it
applicant, which responded within the given deadline.
was first examined whether each of the exporting
producers' total volume of domestic sales of the like
(9) The
Commission
sought
and
verified
all
information
it
product to independent customers was representative in
deemed necessary for the purpose of determining the
comparison with its total volume of export sales to the
level of dumping. Verification visits were carried out at
Union, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales repre
the premises of the applicant and at its related trading
sented at least 5 % of the total volume of export sales of
companies ZAO TMK Trade House (Moscow), TMK
the product concerned to the Union. The examination
Warehouse Complex LLC (Lytkaryno), TMK Europe
established that the domestic sales were representative for
GmbH (Cologne), TMK Italia s.r.l. (Lecco) and TMK
all exporting producers.
Global S.A. (Geneva).
(15) It
was
further
examined
whether
each
product
type
of
1.4. Review investigation period
the like product sold by the exporting producers on its

domestic market were sufficiently representative for the
(10) The investigation of the level of dumping covered the
purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation.
period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011
Domestic sales of a particular product type were
(‘the review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’).
considered sufficiently representative when the total
volume of that product type sold by the applicant on
the domestic market to independent customers during
2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
the RIP represented at least 5 % of its total sales
volume of the comparable product type exported to
2.1. Product concerned
the Union.
(11) The product concerned is the same as that defined in
Implementing Regulation (EU) No
585/2012 which
(16) In
accordance
with
Article
2(4)
of
the
basic
Regulation
it
imposed the measures currently in force, i.e. seamless
was subsequently examined whether the domestic sales
pipes and tubes of iron or steel, of circular cross-
of each product type that had been sold in representative
section, of an external diameter not exceeding
quantities could be regarded as being made in the
406,4 mm with a Carbon Equivalent Value (CEV) not
ordinary course of trade. This was done by establishing
exceeding 0,86 according to the International Institute
the proportion of profitable domestic sales to inde
of Welding (IIW) formula and chemical analysis ( 1 ),
pendent customers on the domestic market for each
currently falling within CN codes ex
7304
11
00,
exported type of the product concerned during the RIP.
ex 7304 19 10,
ex 7304 19 30,
ex 7304 22 00,
ex 7304 23 00,
ex 7304 24 00,
ex 7304 29 10,
(17) For
those
product
types
where
more
than
80
% by
ex 7304 29 30,
ex 7304 31 80,
ex 7304 39 58,
volume of sales on the domestic market of the product
ex 7304 39 92,
ex 7304 39 93,
ex 7304 51 89,
type were above cost and the weighted average sales
ex 7304 59 92 and ex 7304 59 93, originating in
price of that type was equal to or above the unit cost
Russia (‘the product concerned’ or ‘SPT’).
of production, normal value, by product type, was
calculated as the weighted average of the actual
2.2. Like product
domestic prices of all sales of the type in question, irre
spective of whether those sales were profitable or not.
(12) As established in the original investigation as well as in
the expiry review investigation, the current investigation
(18) Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type
confirmed that the product produced in Russia and
represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that
exported to the Union, the product produced and sold
type, or where the weighted average price of that type
on the domestic market of Russia, and the product
was below the unit cost of production, normal value was
produced and sold in the Union by the Union
based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated
producers have the same basic physical and technical
as a weighted average price of only the profitable
characteristics and end uses. These products are
domestic sales of that type made during the RIP.
therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of
Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
(19) The
normal
value
for
the
non-representative
types
(i.e.
those of which domestic sales constituted less than 5 %
( 1 ) The CEV is determined in accordance with Technical Report, 1967,
IIW doc. IX-555-67, published by the International Institute of
of export sales to the Union or were not sold at all in the
Welding (IIW).
domestic market) was calculated on the basis of the cost

---

EN
28.12.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
357/3
of manufacturing per product type plus an amount for
(24) Having
examined
the
issue,
it
was
considered
that
these
selling, general and administrative costs and for profits.
SPT fall within the product scope. The corresponding
In case of existing domestic sales, the profit of trans
export transactions were therefore taken into account
actions in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic
in the dumping calculation.
market per product type for the product types concerned
was used. In case of no domestic sales, an average profit
was used.
(25) During a hearing chaired by the Hearing Officer on
November 9, 2012, the TMK group stated that it
wished to address mainly the classification issue, raised
(20) With
regard
to
manufacturing
costs,
and
in
particular
in the disclosure document, which in their view resulted
energy costs, as far as gas is concerned, it was
in an increase of their dumping margin from circa 13-
examined whether the gas prices paid by the exporting
14 %. The TMK group expressed some surprise regarding
producers reasonably reflected the costs associated with
the fact that these products were considered as falling
the production and distribution of gas.
within the scope of the investigation and reiterated that
these exported quantities had not been reported on the
grounds that these products were ‘blanks’ (also named
(21) It
was
found
that
the
domestic
gas
price
paid
by
the
‘hollows’) and not pipes, and thus, in their opinion, did
exporting producers was around one third of the
not fall within the product scope. They further indicated
export price of natural gas from Russia. In this regard,
that in fact, this matter had been addressed very concisely
all available data indicates that domestic gas prices in
by the Commission services in the course of the verifi
Russia are regulated prices, which are far below market
cation visit. In this regard, it should be noted that the
prices paid in unregulated markets for natural gas.
TMK Group itself indicated in one submission dated
Therefore, since gas costs were not reasonably reflected
31 August 2012, that ‘the question of whether or not
in the exporting producers' records as provided for in
“hollows” falling under CN code 7304 59 10 should be
Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, they had to be
included within the scope of the investigation has been
adjusted accordingly. In the absence of any sufficiently
extensively addressed in the course of the investigation’.
representative, undistorted gas prices relating to the
In fact, both the European Steel Tube Association
Russian domestic market, it was considered appropriate
(‘ESTA’) and the TMK group have had ample opportunity
to base the adjustment, in accordance with Article 2(5),
to comment on this issue on several occasions.
on the basis of information from other representative
Furthermore, it should be noted that the Commission
markets. The adjusted price was based on the average
services requested TMK's related importers to fill in the
price of Russian gas when sold for export at the
Annex to the questionnaire and verified the information
German/Czech border (Waidhaus), adjusted for local
received during an on-spot verification visit in order to
distribution costs. Waidhaus, being the main hub for
collect all relevant information. The statement that this
Russian gas sales to the EU, which is both the largest
matter was very ‘concisely’ addressed by the Commission
market for Russian gas and has prices reasonably
services during the investigation and these products had
reflecting costs, can be considered a representative
been considered to be part of the product scope was
market within the meaning of Article 2(5) of the basic
incorrect and was therefore rejected.
Regulation.
(26) The TMK Group further indicated that the inclusion of
(22) After disclosure, the TMK Group argued that the gas
price adjustment was contrary to Article 2(5) of the
these export quantities was illegal and unjustified as the
Basic Regulation and 2.2.1.1 of the WTO AD
Commission services failed to demonstrate that the pipes
Agreement. As mentioned in recital (21), it was found
were not ‘unworked’ and the conclusions that these
that the domestic gas price paid by the TMK Group was
‘blanks’ were ‘semi-finished’ (or partially worked)
around one third of the export price of natural gas from
products were ill-founded.
Russia. Therefore, since gas costs were not reasonably
reflected in the exporting producers' records as
provided for in Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation,
(27) First
it
is
recalled
that
the
products
covered
by
CN
codes
they had to be adjusted accordingly. The claim made
7304 39 10 and 7304 59 10 are ‘Tubes, pipes and
by the TMK Group was considered to be unsubstantiated
hollow profiles’ seamless, of iron (other than cast iron)
and in the absence of any evidence, it was rejected.
or steel, ‘Unworked, straight and of uniform wall
thickness, for use solely in the manufacture of tubes
and pipes with other cross-sections and wall thicknesses’.
3.1.2. Export price
The Explanatory Note to subheadings 7304 39 10 and
7304 59 10 states that they include ‘seamless steel tubes
(23) It
should
be
noted
that
some
export
quantities
of
the
usually obtained by piercing and hot-rolling or by
product concerned had not been reported by the TMK
piercing and hot drawing; they are usually called
Group as they considered that these SPT did not fall
“blanks”. They are intended to be transformed into
within the scope of the investigation. Samples in the
tubes of other shapes and wall thickness with more
form of cross-sections cuts of the product allegedly
reduced dimensional tolerances. They are presented
falling outside the product scope before and after
with the ends roughly cut off and deburred but are
further processing were shown to the Commission
otherwise unfinished. Their exterior and interior
services during the on spot verification visits which
surfaces are rough and not descaled. They are not
however cannot be regarded as conclusive evidence.
oiled, zinc-coated or painted’. After consideration of the

---

L 357/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
28.12.2012
arguments put forward by the TMK Group and ESTA, it
classification rules are the objective characteristics of the
is considered that based on the various documents
goods at the time of their importation to the Union.
collected during the on-spot verification visits (customer
While the objective characteristics of the goods at the
purchase order and specifications, intercompany
time of their importation to the Union are an
contracts, invoices issued by related importers,
important element, it is not denied by the TMK Group
description of the standard ISO 9809-1) these tubes are
that they classified the product types as falling under
indeed ‘semi-finished’ in the sense that they have to
measures before changing that classification even
correspond to certain requirements and specifications
without any change in the product specifications. This
such as ‘top quality SS hot finished tubes for cylinders,
is considered to be one of the elements that leads to
in steel type 34CrMo4 subject to UNI EN 10083-1 and
the conclusion that the concerned product types fall
DIN 1629 “annealed coarse” and “smooth at ends”, of the
within the scope of the investigation.
dimensions specified in the purchase order.’ Furthermore,
other requirements which are listed in the customer
purchase order and specifications such as ‘ultrasonic
testing for feasible defects, thickness control, ovalization
and straightness’ also point to further processing of these
(31) It
was
also
noted
that
the
unrelated
customer's
purchase
tubes, which is not the case for so-called ‘blanks’.
specifications clearly referred to ‘semi finished’ products
rather than ‘blanks’ or ‘hollows’. On this latter point,
TMK argued that it is totally irrelevant for customs clas
sification purposes how the product is described by a
purchaser. In reply to this, it must be stated that the
(28) The
TMK
Group
claimed
that
the
features
of
‘annealed
description of the product by the purchaser has some
coarse’ and ‘smooth at ends’ are not among the criteria
value in the sense that the purchaser is obviously
listed in the text of the relevant CN codes and the
aware of the product requirements at the time of
Explanatory Note to determine whether a pipe is
order. To say, therefore, that the purchaser's description
‘unworked’. In this respect, it must be noted that
is ‘totally irrelevant’ is doubtful.
heading texts and relevant Explanatory notes do not
always contain an exhaustive list of all the features of
the products covered. In relation to products such as
those in question, which partake of the characteristics
of different kinds of goods, classification depends on
(32) In
conclusion, the semi-finished seamless steel tubes
the most important features of the imported goods.
produced with heat treatment purchased for the
Therefore, while noting that these features are not
purpose of producing such cylinders have to correspond
among the criteria listed in the text of the relevant CN
to very detailed technical/quality/dimensional require
codes and the Explanatory Note, they remain important
ments. These features are clearly not corresponding
elements in assessing whether or not product types can
with the notion of ‘unworked’ as mentioned in the
be considered to be ‘unworked’ and thus within the
Explanatory Notes to CN 7304 39 10 and 7304 59 10
scope of CN codes 7304 39 10. and 7304 59 10.
and therefore, the comments made by the TMK Group
regarding the alleged wrong interpretation of the term
‘unworked’ by the Commission had to be rejected.
(29) The
TMK
group
also
claimed
that
these
tubes
were
not
annealed as they were not heat treated as indicated in the
mill test certificates. In this regard, it should be noted
(33) Contrary
to
several
previous
statements,
the
TMK
group
that the purchase specifications of the customer contain
also argued that these products sold to an unrelated
contradictory information as they mention heat
customer were not solely destined for the same appli
treatment of the product. Reference to these purchase
cation i.e. the production of cylinders, but could also
specifications is made on other documents such as the
be transformed in so-called ‘precision pipes’. The group
manufacturer declaration issued by the TMK Group and
stated that the unrelated customer first transforms blanks
the specification to the contracts signed by the TMK
into cold rolled pipes (or precision pipes) which are then
Group and its unrelated customer.
processed into gas cylinders. It should be noted that this
element is not only contradictory to what was stated by
the TMK group in previous submissions and to what was
found in the documents collected during the verification
visits. Notwithstanding the above, it should be noted that
(30) It
was
further
noted
that
in
the
above-mentioned
inter
this additional allegation was new, was submitted at a
company contracts provided by the TMK Group during
late stage and was not substantiated by evidence. In
the on-spot verification, these products were initially clas
addition, the group submitted evidence that allegedly
sified in a different CN code (under measures) and were
showed that the unrelated customer also sold precision
changed to a CN code not under measures (including
pipes. While noting that this evidence was submitted very
during the IP), although, based on the information
late in the investigation, it was also noted that the
available, there were no changes to the customer
evidence related to a period long after the end of the
purchase order and product specifications. The TMK
RIP and that the documents related to possible sales of
Group argued that this change in the CN code was
any types (or sections) of cold rolled products (pipes).
irrelevant as what matters under the applicable customs
These arguments were therefore rejected.

---

EN
28.12.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
357/5
(34) The majority of exports of the product concerned by the
claims that, in comparison with the last full 12-month
exporting producers to the Union were made to inde
period prior to the imposition of anti-dumping duties on
pendent customers in the Union through two related
TMK's exports of SPT to the Union (1 July 2005-30 June
trading companies, i.e. TMK Europe GmbH located in
2006 or ‘reference period’), the duty was duly reflected in
Germany and TMK Italia s.r.l. located in Italy. The
the prices charged in the RIP and the subsequent selling
export price for the above-mentioned exports was estab
prices in the Union.
lished on the basis of export prices actually paid or
payable in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic
Regulation, i.e. using the resale prices actually paid or
(42) In
this
regard,
it
was
found
that
the
DDP
prices
charged
payable to the related company by the first independent
to the first unrelated customers did not cover costs let
buyer in the Union in the RIP, adjusted for all costs
alone the anti-dumping duties; i.e. these transactions
incurred between importation and resale and for profits.
were overall loss making. It is further noted that, even
though prices for similar products increased by ca. 30 %
since the reference period, the price of raw materials
(35) Some
limited
quantities
were
exported
directly
to
inde
which account on average for more than 50 % of the
pendent customers in the Union. The export price for
cost of manufacturing increased by more than 70 % over
these quantities was established on the basis of export
the same period. On the basis of the above, it is
prices actually paid or payable in accordance with
considered that no conclusive evidence was provided to
Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.
show that the duty is duly reflected in the prices charged.
3.1.3. Comparison
(43) It
is
also
noted
that,
even
if
one
were
to
accept
that
the
(36) The normal value and the export price of the exporting
duty is reflected in the subsequent selling prices (quod
producers were compared on an ex-works basis. For the
non), Article 11(10) of the basic Regulation requires
purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the
that resale prices and subsequent selling prices both
normal value and export price, due allowance in the
reflect the duty.
form of adjustments was made for differences affecting
prices and price comparability in accordance with
Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. On this basis,
(44) After
disclosure,
the
TMK
Group
continued
to
object
to
adjustments were made in respect of packaging,
the deduction of the duties from the export prices and
transport costs, credit costs and anti-dumping duties.
further argued that the gas cost adjustment made resulted
in losses, which in its view, were certainly of a lower
magnitude, without providing however any further
(37) The TMK Group requested that certain characteristics
evidence. The TMK Group maintained its view that the
pertaining to steel grade, threading type and coating of
fact that ex-works export prices should be above the
SPT be taken into account in order to ensure a fair
costs of production was legally flawed and reiterated
comparison between SPT sold domestically and for
that the criteria to be examined was only whether anti-
export.
dumping duties paid were duly reflected in the resale
price charged by its unrelated customers which
purchased on a DDP basis. However, since the DDP
(38) The
Defence Committee of the Seamless
Steel Tube
prices charged to the first unrelated customers did not
Industry of the European Union (‘ESTA’) claimed that
cover the costs, let alone the anti-dumping duties, even
any request to change the product definition or the
without the gas adjustment and since the price of raw
methodology used in the original investigation or
materials which account on average for more than 50 %
subsequent review was in breach of Article 11(9) of
of the cost of manufacturing increased by more than
the basic Regulation and should be disregarded.
70 % over the same period as mentioned in recital (42)
above, it is considered that the TMK Group has not
provided conclusive evidence showing that the duty
(39) In this regard, the investigation revealed that the request
was duly reflected in the prices charged or subsequent
made by the TMK Group did not affect the product
selling prices.
definition but rather allowed the identification of

additional characteristics which ensure a fair comparison
of SPT sharing the same features. Further, it was found
that these additional characteristics affected prices and
(45) On
the
basis
of
the
above,
this
claim
had
to
be
rejected.
price comparability.
3.1.4. Dumping margin
(40) On the basis of the above, it was considered that the
request was warranted and the above mentioned char
(46) Pursuant
to
Article
2(11)
and
(12)
of
the
basic
Regu
acteristics were therefore taken into account.
lation, the weighted average normal value was
compared with the weighted average export price per
product type on an ex-work basis separately for each
(41) The TMK Group claimed that, in accordance with
of the exporting producers. One common dumping
Article 11(10) of the basic Regulation, the duties paid
margin is established for the TMK Group by calculating
on DDP (‘delivered duty paid’) transactions should not
a single weighted average rate of dumping for the
be deducted in order to construct export price. It
exporting producers within the TMK Group.

---

L 357/6
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
28.12.2012
(47) On
this
basis
the
dumping
margin,
expressed
as
an
considered. It was found that exports to non-EU
percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty
countries of identical products were made at comparable
unpaid, was 29,6 %. Following disclosure, the TMK
price levels as the export sales to the EU in the same
group pointed to some clerical errors in the dumping
period. As far as the period after the RIP is concerned, it
calculations for two of its production entities. These
was found they were made at slightly higher prices than
clerical errors were corrected and the weighted average
in the RIP, which is in line with international price level
dumping margin found for the TMK Group is 28,7 %
evolution. There was thus no indication that the export
instead of 29,6 %.
prices would fluctuate considerably in the foreseeable
future.
(48) It
is
noted
that
this
dumping
margin
is,
contrary
to
the
prima facie evidence provided in the review request,
higher than the existing duty applicable to imports
5. AMENDMENT OF THE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
from the TMK Group. The increase results from a
number of factors: firstly, the evidence provided in the
(53) In the light of the results of the investigation, it is
review request only related to certain transactions of one
considered appropriate to amend the anti-dumping
of the three exporting producers. Some of these trans
duty applicable to imports of the product concerned
actions were found not to relate to the product
from the TMK Group to 28,7 %. The amended anti-
concerned. Secondly, during the course of the investi
dumping duty should be set at the level of the
gation, as mentioned in recital (23) above, some export
dumping margin found, as it is lower than the injury
transactions of the product concerned had not been
margin established in the original investigation.
reported by the group. Finally, the group's claim in
regard to duty as a cost (see recitals (41) to (45)) was
rejected. The combination of these elements, together
(54) Interested
parties
were
informed
of
the
essential
facts
and
with other elements verified during the course of the
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
investigation, resulted in an increase in the dumping
recommend an amendment of Implementing Regulation
margin.
(EU) No 585/2012 and were given an opportunity to
comment,
4. LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES
(49) In
accordance
with
Article
11(3)
of
the
basic
Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
it was examined whether the changed circumstances
regarding dumping could reasonably be considered to
Article 1
be of a lasting nature.
The entry concerning OAO Volzhsky Pipe Plant, OAO
(50) TMK
Group
indicated
in
its
review
request
that
there
were changed circumstances of a lasting nature as it
Taganrog Metallurgical Works,
had made significant changes in its internal structure
and substantial improvements to its production
OAO Sinarsky Pipe Plant and OAO Seversky Tube Works in the
equipment which had a direct impact on its cost
table of Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU)
structure.
No 585/2012 is hereby replaced by the following:
(51) The investigation revealed that the TMK Group had
indeed made significant investments that lead to effi
ciency gains and increased capacity. However, given the
‘OAO Volzhsky Pipe Plant, OAO 28,7 % A859’
increase in raw material prices and the evolution of the
Taganrog Metallurgical Works,
product mix towards more added-value products, a
OAO Sinarsky Pipe Plant and OAO
Seversky Tube Works
decrease of production cost could not be ascertained.
The improvements referred to in recital (50) were
found to be of structural nature and to be unlikely to
change in the near future.
Article 2
(52) In
addition,
the
development
of
export
prices
to
non-EU
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that
countries in the RIP and to the EU after the RIP was also
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, 21 December 2012.
For the Council
The President
A. D. MAVROYIANNIS

---

Document Outline

• �

---