HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
26.6.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
165/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 540/2012
of 21 June 2012
amending Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel originating in Croatia, Romania, Russia and
Ukraine
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
(3) With
regard
to
CJSC
Nikopolosky
Seamless
Tubes
Plant
Niko Tube and OJSC Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling
Plant (NTRP) it is recalled that their company names
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
changed in February 2007 to CJSC Interpipe Nikopolsky
Union,
Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube and OJSC Interpipe
Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant, respectively ( 6 ).
Subsequently, CJSC Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
Tubes Plant Niko Tube has been discontinued as a
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
legal entity and all its property and non-property rights
from countries not members of the European Community (
and liabilities were taken over by LLC Interpipe Niko

1 )
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
Tube, which was established in December 2007.
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
Commission (‘the Commission’) after having consulted the
(4) By
its
judgment
of
10
March
2009
( 7 ), the CFI annulled
Advisory Committee,
Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 in so far as
the anti-dumping duty fixed for exports by the applicants
exceeds that which would have been applicable had the
export price not been adjusted for a commission when
Whereas:
sales took place through the related trading company.
A. PROCEDURE
(1) In
March
2005,
the
Commission
initiated
an
investi
(5) The
Council
of
the
European
Union
and
the
gation (
Commission, as well as the applicants, lodged appeals

2 ) with regards to imports of certain seamless
pipes and tubes (SPT) originating, inter alia, in Ukraine
requesting the Court of Justice of the European Union
(‘original investigation’). In June 2006 definitive anti-
(ECJ) to set aside the CFI judgment of 10 March 2009.
dumping duties were imposed by Council Regulation
On 16 February 2012, the ECJ dismissed both the
(EC) No 954/2006 (
appeals and the cross-appeal (‘the Judgment’) (

3 ). In addition, on 30 November

8 ) and
2007, the Commission published a Notice in the
thus confirmed the CFI (now the General Court)
Official Journal of the European Union, reflecting a name
judgment of 10 March 2009.
change of two Ukrainian exporting producers ( 4 ).
(2) On
8
September
2006,
Interpipe
Nikopolsky
Seamless (6) Article
1
of
Regulation
(EC)
No
954/2006
was
Tubes Plant Niko Tube and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky
consequently annulled to the extent to which the anti-
Tube Rolling Plant (‘Interpipe group’ or ‘the applicants’)
dumping duty imposed on exports into the European
lodged a request ( 5 ) before the Court of First Instance of
Union of goods produced and exported by the
the European Communities (CFI) to annul Regulation
Interpipe group exceeded that which would be applicable
(EC) No 954/2006 as far as it affects them.
if export price not been adjusted for a commission when
sales took place through the related trading company.
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
( 2 ) OJ C 77, 31.3.2005, p. 2.
( 6 ) OJ C 288, 30.11.2007, p. 34.
( 3 ) OJ L 175, 29.6.2006, p. 4.
( 7 ) Case T-249/06 — Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe NTRP v Council
( 4 ) OJ C 288, 30.11.2007, p. 34.
[2009] ECR II-383.
( 5 ) OJ C 261, 28.10.2006, p. 28.
( 8 ) OJ C 98, 31.3.2012, p. 2.

---

L 165/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
26.6.2012
(7)
It is recognised by the Courts ( 1 ) that, in cases where a
product type on an ex-factory basis showed the existence
proceeding consists of several steps, the annulment of
of dumping. The dumping margin established, expressed
one of these steps does not annul the complete
as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Union
proceeding. The anti-dumping proceeding is an example
frontier, duty unpaid, is 17,7 %.
of such a multi-step proceeding. Consequently, the
annulment of parts of the definitive anti-dumping Regu
lation does not imply the annulment of the entire
procedure prior to the adoption of the Regulation in
C. DISCLOSURE
question. On the other hand, according to Article 266
of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
(15) All
interested
parties
concerned
by
the
implementation
of
the Union institutions are obliged to comply with the
the Judgment were informed of the proposal to revise the
Judgment of the Courts of the European Union. Accord
rates of anti-dumping duty applicable to the Interpipe
ingly, the Union Institutions, in so complying with the
group. They were also granted a period within which
Judgment, have the possibility to remedy the aspects of
they could make representations subsequent to this
the contested Regulation which led to its annulment,
disclosure in accordance with the provisions of the
while leaving unchanged the uncontested parts which
basic Regulation.
are not affected by the Judgment ( 2 ).
D. CONCLUSION
(8)
This Regulation seeks to correct the aspects of the Regu
lation (EC) No 954/2006 found to be inconsistent with
(16) On the basis of the above the duty rate applicable to the
the basic Regulation, and which thus led to the
Interpipe group should be amended accordingly. The
annulment of parts of that Regulation. All other
amended rate should also apply retroactively from
findings made in Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 remain
30 June 2006 (the date that Regulation (EC) No
valid.
954/2006 entered into force), in the following sense:
repayment or remission must be requested from
(9) Therefore,
in
accordance
with
Article
266
of
the
Treaty
national customs authorities in accordance with
on the Functioning of the European Union, the anti-
applicable customs legislation. For instance, if that
dumping duty rate for the Interpipe group was recal
repayment or remission is asked on the basis of
culated on the basis of the Judgment.
Article 236(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No
2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the
Community Customs Code ( 3 ) it must, in principle,
B. NEW ASSESSMENT OF THE FINDINGS BASED ON
only be granted if the request was made by a submission
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
of an application to the appropriate customs office
within a period of three years from the date on which
(10) In this Regulation, the aspect of the Judgment that is
the amount of those duties was communicated to the
addressed is the calculation of the dumping margin,
debtor. (For example, if the duty was collected shortly
more specifically the calculation of the adjustment
after the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No
made to the export price for differences in commissions
954/2006, and the request for reimbursement was
in accordance with Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regu
made within three years from the date on which the
lation.
amount of duties was communicated to the debtor,
normally, the request should be granted, provided that
it also fulfils all other requirements),
(11) As outlined in recitals (131) and (134) of the Regulation
(EC) No 954/2006, the export price was adjusted for
commissions pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) of the basic
Regulation for sales made via the related trading
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
company.
(12) The
CFI, in its Judgment,
found, and the ECJ later
Article 1
confirmed, that the Union Institutions, in comparing
the normal value and the export price, should not have
The entry concerning CJSC Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless
made an adjustment for commissions in this particular
Tubes Plant Niko Tube and OJSC Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky
case.
Tube Rolling Plant, in the table in Article 1 of Council Regu
lation (EC) No 954/2006, shall be replaced by the following:
(13) Therefore,
the
dumping
margin
was
re-calculated
without
adjusting the export price for differences in commissions.
‘Company
Anti-dumping
TARIC
duty
additional code
(14) The comparison of the thus re-calculated weighted
average export price with the weighted average normal
LLC Interpipe Niko Tube and OJSC
17,7 % A743’
value as found during the original investigation by
Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube
Rolling Plant (Interpipe NTRP)
( 1 ) Case T-2/95 Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) v Council [1998]
ECR II-3939.
( 2 ) Case C-458/98 P IPS v Council [2000] ECR I-8147.
( 3 ) OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.

---

EN
26.6.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
165/3
Article 2
To the extent that products produced by the companies referred to in Article 1 are concerned, the amounts
of duties paid or entered into the accounts pursuant to Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 954/2006
in its initial version and which exceed those as established on the basis of Article 1 of Council Regulation
(EC) No 954/2006 as amended by this Regulation, shall be repaid or remitted. Repayment or remission
must be requested from national customs authorities in accordance with applicable customs legislation.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that 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 Luxembourg, 21 June 2012.
For the Council
The President
M. FREDERIKSEN

---

Document Outline

• �

---