HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
29.1.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
27/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
REGULATIONS
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 78/2013
of 17 January 2013
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on
imports of certain tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel originating in Russia and Turkey
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
(3) As
set
out
in
recital
15
of
the
provisional
Regulation,
the
investigation of dumping and injury covered the period
from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011 (‘investi
gation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of trends relevant
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
for the assessment of injury covered the period from
Union,
1 January 2008 to the end of the IP (‘period considered’).
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of
2. Subsequent procedure
30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports
from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 )
(4)
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and
(‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
considerations on the basis of which it was decided to
impose provisional anti-dumping measures (‘provisional
disclosure’), several interested parties made written
submissions making their views known on the
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European
provisional findings. The parties who so requested were
Commission after having consulted the Advisory Committee,
also granted the opportunity to be heard.
Whereas:
(5) The
Commission
continued
to
seek
and
analyse
all
information it deemed necessary for its definitive
findings.
A. PROCEDURE
1. Provisional measures
3. Sampling
(1) On
31
July
2012,
the
European
Commission
(‘the
Commission’), by Regulation (EU) No 699/2012 ( 2 ) (‘the
(6) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
concerning
the
provisional Regulation’) imposed a provisional anti-
sampling of Union producers, unrelated importers and
dumping duty on imports of certain tube and pipe
exporting producers, the provisional findings in recitals
fittings of iron or steel originating in Russia and Turkey.
5 to 11 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed.
(2) The
proceeding
was
initiated
by
a
notice
of
initiation
( 3 )
published on 1 November 2011, following a complaint
4. Measures in force in respect of other third
lodged on 20 September 2011 by the Defence
countries
committee of the Steel Butt-Welding Fittings Industry
of the European Union (‘the complainants’) on behalf
(7)
It is reiterated that definitive anti-dumping measures are
of producers representing more than 40 % of the total
in force in respect of certain tube and pipe fittings of
Union production of certain tube and pipe fittings of
iron or steel originating in Malaysia, the People’s
iron or steel.
Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Thailand,
and following circumvention practices also in respect of
certain tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel originating
( 1 ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
( 2 ) OJ L 203, 31.7.2012, p. 37.
in the People’s Republic of China consigned from
( 3 ) OJ C 320, 1.11.2011, p. 4.
Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Taiwan (with

---

L 27/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
29.1.2013
certain exceptions) ( 1 ). The countries mentioned in the
1.4. Dumping margin
preceding sentence shall hereafter be referred to as
‘countries under anti-dumping measures’.
(14) One Russian exporting producer claimed that the
provisional anti-dumping duty of 23,8 % is not justified
in light of the fact that the company only exports steel
B.
elbows to the Union and even those in only very small
PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
quantities. However, steel elbows are part of the product
(8) As
set
out
in
recital
17
of
the
provisional
Regulation,
the
subject to this investigation and this has not been
product concerned is tube and pipe fittings (other than
contested by any interested party. In addition, the
cast fittings, flanges and threaded fittings), of iron or steel
criterion to consider imports into the Union as negligible
(not including stainless steel), with a greatest external
as referred to in Article 5(7) and Article 9(3) of the basic
diameter not exceeding 609,6 mm, of a kind used for
Regulation is only considered on a countrywide level and
butt-welding or other purposes, currently falling within
not individually per company. The claim is therefore
CN
codes
ex 7307 93 11,
ex 7307 93 19
and
rejected.
ex 7307 99 80 (‘the product concerned’).
(15) Another Russian exporting producer claimed it has not
(9) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
concerning
the
product
been dumping and that this is reflected by the fact that
concerned and the like product, the provisional findings
on multiple occasions it has lost tenders to Union
in recitals 17 to 20 of the provisional Regulation are
competitors for supplying elbows and bends. As
hereby confirmed.
mentioned above, it is recalled that no Russian
exporting producer cooperated in this investigation and
therefore the dumping calculations for Russia were made
C. DUMPING
in accordance with Article 18(1) and Article 18(5) of the
basic Regulation on the basis of the facts available. Even
1. Russia
if the claim is considered, it should be noted that the loss
of tenders to Union competitors does not contradict the
1.1. Normal value
finding about dumping by the Russian exporting
producer. The claim is therefore rejected.
(10) One
Russian
exporting
producer
claimed
that
only
data
obtained from Russian companies should have been used
in the dumping margin calculations and that it is not
accurate to use data from Turkish companies. It should
(16) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments
concerning
the
be recalled that in the absence of cooperation by any
dumping margin calculation, the findings in recitals 30
Russian exporting producer, the normal value for
and 31 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
Russia has been established in accordance with
confirmed.
Article 18(1) and 18(5) of the basic Regulation on the
basis of the facts available, i.e. information obtained from
those Turkish exporting producers that use Russian
(17) The
countrywide
dumping
margin
finally
determined,
seamless steel pipes and tubes as input for the
expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier
production of the product concerned. The claim is
price, duty unpaid, is the following:
therefore rejected.
(11) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments
concerning
the
Company Dumping
margin
determination of normal value, the provisional findings
in recitals 22 to 25 of the provisional Regulation are
All companies 23,8
%
hereby confirmed.
2. Turkey
1.2. Export price
2.1. Normal value
(12) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
concerning
the
deter
(18) In the absence of any comments concerning the deter
mination of export price, the provisional findings in
mination of normal value, the provisional findings in
recitals 26 and 27 of the provisional Regulation are
recitals 32 to 40 of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.
hereby confirmed.
1.3. Comparison
2.2. Export price
(13) In the absence of any comments concerning the
(19) One
exporting
producer
claimed
that
the
profit
margin
comparison of export price and normal value, the
achieved on the ocean freight, i.e. the difference between
provisional findings in recitals 28 and 29 of the
the freight charged to its customers and the freight paid
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
by the exporting producer to the shipping company,
should be included in the export price. However,
( 1 ) OJ L 275, 16.10.2008, p. 18 and OJ L 233, 4.9.2009, p. 1.
pursuant to Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation the

---

EN
29.1.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
27/3
export price shall be the price actually paid or payable
which differed significantly among different purchasers
for the product when sold for export from the exporting
and regions, as well as time periods (up to 30 % for
country to the Union. A profit margin achieved on the
identical models of the product concerned). Furthermore,
transport of the product to the customer cannot be
the dumping calculation based on the comparison of a
considered as part of the export price of the product
weighted average normal value to a weighted average of
itself. The claim is therefore rejected.
export prices in accordance with the method provided in
Article 2(11) first part of the first sentence of the basic
Regulation did not reflect the full degree of dumping
being practised by the two producers concerned, as
demonstrated in recital 27 of this Regulation. The
(20) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments
concerning
the
dumping margin could also not be established by a
determination of export price, the provisional findings in
comparison of individual normal values and individual
recitals 41 to 43 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
export prices to the Union on a transaction-to-trans
confirmed.
action basis in accordance with Article 2(11) second
part of the first sentence of the basic Regulation, given
the lack of sufficient domestic transactions for normal
value corresponding to the export transactions as
demonstrated in recital 28.
2.3. Comparison
(21) The
Turkish
Steel
Exporters’
Association
(IB)
claimed
that the significant price differences between seamless
(25) Therefore,
in
order
to
reflect
the
full
amount
of
dumping
and welded pipe fittings have not been properly taken
being practised by the two companies concerned, in
into account in the comparison between export price and
accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation,
normal value. However, all cooperating companies have
the normal value established on a weighted average
submitted information on a transaction-to-transaction
basis was compared in their case to prices of all indi
basis with regard to sales of seamless and welded
vidual export transactions to the Union. Given that such
fittings. That information has been explicitly used for
method of comparison is an exception to the two first
the comparison between export price and normal
methods provided for in Article 2(11) of the basic Regu
value. In other words, seamless fittings have only been
lation, the Commission carefully checked whether the
compared with seamless fittings and welded fittings have
conditions to resort to it were clearly met in this case.
only been compared with welded fittings. Therefore, the
The detailed dumping calculations, including the estab
claim is rejected.
lished export price patterns, have been disclosed. None of
the Turkish exporting producers contested the underlying
data.
(22) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments
in
respect
of
comparison, the findings in recital 44 of the provisional
(26) However,
both
cooperating
companies,
the
IB
and
the
Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Turkish Government claimed that insufficient explanation
had been provided as to the targeted dumping established
for the two Turkish exporting producers and that in any
event, any pattern of export prices was unintended. In a
hearing with the Hearing Officer, requested by the two
2.4. Dumping margins
Turkish exporters, detailed explanations were provided to
the two companies with regard to the establishment of
(a) Dumping margin for companies investigated
targeted dumping and the underlying dumping margin
calculations. The Commission also clarified that even if
(23) It is recalled that the individual dumping margin
provisionally established for one of the three cooperating
unintentional ( 1 ), their practices had the effect of targeted
exporting producers was determined on the basis of a
dumping. It is noted that the basic regulation does not
comparison of a weighted average normal value with the
require the investigating authority to identify potential
company’s weighted average export price of the product
reasons for targeted dumping, such as currency fluctu
concerned to the Union. In the absence of any comments
ations, different regional pricing policies, etc. The mere
concerning the determination of that company’s
establishment of patterns of export prices differing
dumping margin, the provisional findings in recital 46
significantly among different purchasers, regions or
of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
time periods, is sufficient (


2 ). Further to the hearing,
company-specific explanations have also been disclosed
to the two companies. Moreover, a Note Verbale has
been sent to the Permanent Delegation of Turkey to
the Union with clarifications on the establishment of
targeted dumping and the methodology applied for
(24) The
dumping
calculations
in
respect
of
the
two
other
cooperating companies showed that they conducted
targeted dumping in terms of a given time period as
( 1 ) Case T-274/02 Ritek Corp. and Prodisc Technology Inc. v Council [2006]
ECR II-4305, paragraph 57.
well as in respect of given customers and regions.
( 2 ) Case T-274/02 Ritek Corp. and Prodisc Technology Inc. v Council [2006]
Indeed, there was a clear pattern of their export prices
ECR II-4305 paragraph 60.

---

L 27/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
29.1.2013
the dumping margin calculation. Furthermore, in another
(29) Both
cooperating
companies
and
the
IB
claimed
that
it
hearing with the Hearing Officer, requested by the IB,
was unjustified to compare export prices converted in
detailed explanations have been provided to the IB with
Turkish Lira, given the fact that sales to the Union
regard to the establishment of targeted dumping and the
have been made in euro while Turkish Lira is only
underlying dumping margin calculations.
used for accountancy reasons. It was argued that
currency exchange fluctuations between euro and
Turkish Lira have had a significant effect on the price
determinations which would inevitably affect the result of
(27) The
investigation
has
established
for
each
of
the
two
export price comparison between different time periods
exporting producers three clear patterns of export
in an unjustified manner. However, the Commission’s
prices covering the vast majority of their export sales
consistent practice is to carry out export price
to the Union, i.e. export prices differed significantly
comparison and dumping margin calculations in the
among different purchasers and regions, as well as time
accounting currency of cooperating exporting producers
periods, as was demonstrated by the underlying data
in the exporting country. It should be noted that costs
disclosed to the parties. This was the result of a
and domestic prices used as a basis for normal value are
thorough examination of the exceptional circumstances
expressed in Turkish Lira. Consequently, the comparison
of this case, on the basis of which it was considered
of export prices with the normal value is carried out in
necessary to resort to targeted dumping. Having estab
that currency. Thus, the only logical approach to
lished significant export price differences, and whereas
establish a pattern of export prices, within the
only one of those three patterns of export prices
framework of the same dumping calculation, is to use
would be sufficient to resort to the weighted average
the same export prices already expressed in Turkish Lira.
to all individual export transaction comparison method
In addition, as stated above, the basic Regulation does
ology, this comparison method was considered appro
not require an analysis of possible reasons of targeted
priate in this particular case. Furthermore, for each of
dumping, such as exchange rate fluctuations ( 1 ). The
the two companies, the total amount of dumping estab
claim is therefore rejected.
lished by comparison of the weighted average normal
value with the weighted average export price of the
product concerned to the Union (the first symmetrical
method) significantly differs from the amount of
dumping established by comparison of the normal
(30) Both
cooperating
exporting
producers
claimed
that,
in
value established on a weighted average basis with
order to establish a pattern of export prices, weighted
prices of all individual export transactions to the Union
average prices of comparable product types should be
(the asymmetrical method), as was demonstrated by the
taken into account rather than arithmetic average
underlying data disclosed to the parties. Therefore it can
prices. However, Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation
be concluded that the use of the first symmetrical
refers to a pattern of export prices and not to a
method would have the effect of inappropriately
pattern of weighted average export prices or a pattern
disguising the targeted dumping which took place
of export values. The use of a weighted average export
during a specific time period, in specific regions and to
price would distort the analysis by taking into account
specific customers. In other words, the dumping margin
the volume of exports instead of only the export prices.
established by the first symmetrical method would not
In any case, even when weighted average prices are used
reflect the full degree of dumping being practiced by the
instead of arithmetic average export prices, a pattern of
two companies concerned.
export prices could still be established which differs
significantly among different purchasers and regions, as
well as time periods. Two parties contested the
significance of differences in patterns of export prices,
(28) The
dumping
margin
could
also
not
be
established
by
a
if any, in case weighted averages are used. It is noted
comparison of individual normal values with individual
that the parties do not contest the factual findings based
export prices to the Union on a transaction to trans
on the arithmetic average, which is the appropriate
action basis in accordance with Article 2(11) second
methodology as explained above. This claim is
part of the first sentence of the basic Regulation (the
therefore rejected.
second symmetrical method). That method involves iden
tifying individual domestic transactions which are
comparable to individual export transactions, taking
into account factors such as sales quantity and trans
action date. Given the lack of sufficient domestic trans
actions for normal value corresponding to the export
(31) The
IB
claimed
that
the
application
of
zeroing
is
unjus
transactions, it was not possible to establish the
tified by referring to a WTO Appellate Body Report ( 2 )
dumping margin on the basis of the second symmetrical
(the Bed Linen Report) in which the zeroing practice was
method. Therefore, given the establishment of a pattern
found to be contrary to the WTO Anti-Dumping
of export prices which differed significantly among
Agreement. The General Court
( 3 ) has, however,
different purchasers, regions and time periods, and
given that the two symmetrical methods would not
( 1 ) Case T-274/02 Ritek Corp. and Prodisc Technology Inc. v Council [2006]
reflect the full degree of dumping, it has been decided,
ECR II-4305 paragraph 51 — last sentence.
in accordance with the second sentence of Article 2(11),
( 2 ) WTO Appellate Body Report, European Communities — Anti-
Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India.
to establish the dumping margin on the basis of the
( 3 ) Case T-274/02 Ritek Corp. and Prodisc Technology Inc. v Council [2006]
asymmetrical method.
ECR II-4305 paragraphs 98-103.

---

EN
29.1.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
27/5
confirmed that the findings of the Bed Linen Report are
Company Dumping
margin
(%)
not applicable in a situation of targeted dumping. Indeed,
the Bed linen Report concerns only the zeroing technique
Unifit 12,1
in the context of the first symmetrical method and
cannot be considered to deal with this mechanism
All other companies 16,7
when it is used in the context of the asymmetrical
method. Therefore, even if, as the WTO Appellate Body
D. INJURY
found, it might indeed be contrary to Article 2.4.2 of the
1994 Anti-dumping Code and unfair to employ the
1.
Union production, Union industry and
zeroing technique in the context of the first symmetrical
consumption
method, and especially in the absence of an export price
pattern, it is not contrary to that provision or to
(37) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
with
regard
to
Union
Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, nor is it unfair
production, Union industry and consumption the
within the meaning of Article 2(10) of that Regulation,
content of recitals 51 to 54 of the provisional Regulation
to employ the zeroing technique in the context of the
is hereby confirmed.
asymmetrical method, where the two conditions for
applying that method are met. Furthermore, the
zeroing technique has proved to be mathematically
necessary in order to distinguish, in terms of its results,
2. Imports from the countries concerned
the asymmetrical method from the first symmetrical
method. In the absence of that reduction, the asym
2.1. Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports
metrical method will always yield the same result as
concerned
the first symmetrical method. This claim is therefore
rejected.
(38) Following
provisional
disclosure,
the
IB
argued
that
the
cumulative assessment of dumped imports from the two
countries concerned is not warranted. In principle, they
(32) Further,
the
IB
claimed
that
the
use
of
zeroing
causes
a
echoed the comments made by the Turkish exporting
violation of the lesser duty rule. It was argued that,
producers following the initiation and claimed that
because of the zeroing practice used, margins of
imports from Russia and Turkey show different trends
dumping have been calculated at a level higher than
in terms of volume and prices.
they should actually have been.
(33) However,
the
use
of
zeroing
in
the
asymmetrical
method
(39) It is reiterated in this regard, as already stated in recital
does not preclude the application of the lesser duty rule.
59 of the provisional Regulation, that the investigation
For all three cooperating companies the dumping
established that while imports from Turkey are relatively
margins, regardless of the methodology used, have been
stable in terms of volumes, imports from Russia are
compared with the companies’ injury elimination levels
increasing in absolute terms. However, given the
to ensure that the lower of the two would determine the
contraction in demand in the period considered, the
duty. The claim is therefore rejected.
market shares of imports from both countries are
increasing.
(34) In the absence of any other comments in respect of the
dumping margins for companies investigated, the
findings in recitals 47 and 48 of the provisional Regu
(40) At the same time their pricing do not appear to be
lation are hereby confirmed.
substantially different, with Russian average prices being
somewhat lower but very close to the average Turkish
prices. It is also reiterated in this regard that for
(b) Dumping margin for non-cooperating companies
companies in both countries the investigation established
significant undercutting of up to ca. 30 % (see recital 65
(35) In the absence of any comments concerning the
of the provisional Regulation). Consequently, the claim is
dumping margin for non-cooperating companies, the
rejected.
provisional findings in recital 49 of the provisional Regu
lation are hereby confirmed.
(41) The
IB
also
argued
that
imports
from
Turkey
should
be
(36) The
countrywide
dumping
margins
finally
determined,
considered insignificant and pointed out that in a
expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier
previous case concerning a similar product — namely
price, duty unpaid, are the following:
in ‘pipe and tube fittings from the PRC, Croatia,
Slovakia, Taiwan and Thailand’ ( 1 ) — imports from
Slovakia and Taiwan were considered insignificant
Company Dumping
margin
(%)
(although they were above the de minimis threshold)
and therefore not cumulated with dumped imports
RSA 9,6
from other countries.
Sardogan 2,9
( 1 ) OJ L 234, 3.10.1995, p. 4.

---

L 27/6
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
29.1.2013
(42) It
is
noted
in
this
regard
that
in
pipe
and
tube
fittings
3. Situation of the Union industry
from the PRC, Croatia, Slovakia, Taiwan and Thailand,
imports from Slovakia and Taiwan were indeed found to
(48) Following provisional disclosure, the IB and the Turkish
be dumped and despite being above the 1 % market
Government claimed that given that the Union industry
share threshold they were not cumulated with other
increased their market share by some 3 % between 2008
dumped imports. The situation in that case, however,
and the IP, the Commission should have concluded that
was very different from the current one, as imports
the Union industry did not suffer material injury in the
from Slovakia and Taiwan were actually sharply losing
period considered.
their market share and were not considered significant
when compared to the volume of imports from the other
countries and consequently were considered not to be
causing injury. In contrast, in the case at hand imports
(49) It
is
noted
in
this
regard
that
firstly,
it
was
clearly
from both Turkey and Russia are increasing their market
recognised in the provisional Regulation (see for
share and are comparable to each other in terms of
example recitals 72, 86 or 91 of the provisional Regu
volumes. Consequently, the claim is rejected.
lation) that there was a slight increase in the market

share of the Union industry. Secondly, recital 72 of the
provisional Regulation clarifies that the increased market
share is a reflection of the fact that the sales volumes of
the Union producers dropped slightly less than the
(43) The
IB
also
argued
that
imports
from
Turkey
and
consumption in the period considered.
Russia are not similar in terms of conditions of
competition as there are ‘differences in geographical
concentration of sales’. They have provided statistics
showing that during the IP Turkey has concentrated
(50) Moreover,
apart
from
falling
stocks
referred
to
below,
it
over 70 % of their sales on Spain, France, Italy and
is the only injury indicator that shows a positive devel
Poland, while Russia concentrated almost all of their
opment over the period considered. Consequently, the
sales on the Czech Republic and Germany.
claim is rejected.
(44) It
is
noted
in
this
regard
that
differences
in
geographical
(51) The
Turkish
government
also
claimed
that
a
dropping
concentration of sales cannot be considered to be an
closing stock of the sampled Union producers is an indi
indication of different conditions of competition. Given
cation of a non-injurious situation of the Union industry.
that the Union is a single market, the point of entry of
any imports will normally not be decisive for the
competitiveness of those imports with each other and
vis-à-vis the like product. It is also reiterated with
(52) It
is
noted
in
this
regard
that
indeed
as
stated
in
recital
79 of the provisional Regulation the closing stock of the
respect to conditions of competition that Russian and
sampled Union producers decreased by 18 % between
Turkish imports are similar in respect of price and
2008 and the IP.
were both found to undercut Union prices and that
their channels of sales are similar. Consequently, the
claim is rejected.
(53) At the same time it is recognised that a drop in stocks
could be seen as a positive sign but only in a situation
when sales would be growing at a pace faster than
(45) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments
with
regard
to
production. However, this is not the case in the current
cumulative assessment of the dumped imports from the
investigation. On the contrary, the drop in stocks in this
countries concerned the content of recitals 55 to 60 of
case is merely a reflection of production volumes
the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
dropping at a faster pace than sales. In this situation
the drop in stocks cannot be seen as a positive devel
opment. Consequently, the claim is rejected.
2.2. Volume, market share of the dumped imports concerned,
their import prices and undercutting
(54) In
the
absence
of
any
other
claim
or
comments,
the
(46) In
the
absence
of
any
comments
with
regard
to
volume
content of recitals 66 to 88 of the provisional Regu
and market share of the dumped imports concerned,
lation, including the conclusion that Union industry
their import prices and undercutting, the content of
has suffered material injury within the meaning of
recitals 61 to 65 of the provisional Regulation is
Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, is hereby confirmed.
hereby confirmed.
E. CAUSATION
(47) It
is
reiterated
that
the
dumped
product
concerned
orig
1. Effect of the dumped imports
inating in the countries concerned sold in the Union
undercut the Union industry’s prices by up to about
(55) In
the
absence
of
any
specific
comments,
recitals
90
to
30 %.
93 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

---

EN
29.1.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
27/7
2. Effect of other factors
fittings. Consumption dropped by over 40 % between
2008 and 2009, and remained at that low level
(56) Following
the
provisional
disclosure,
the
IB
and
the
throughout the rest of the period considered (although
Turkish Government claimed that the actual cause of
slightly increasing in the IP). Given that fixed costs make
any injury suffered by the Union industry would be
up to 40 % of the manufacturing costs of the Union
low priced imports from other third countries and in
producers, the decreased demand, sales and output
particular from countries under anti-dumping measures.
result in significantly higher unit manufacturing costs.
This obviously has had an important impact on the
profitability of the Union industry.
(57) In this regard it is noted that, as already stated in recital
96 of the provisional Regulation, imports from the eight
countries under anti-dumping measures continued to
(62) At
the
same
time,
any
negative
impact
of
higher
unit
penetrate the Union market although their market
manufacturing cost was clearly deepened by the fact
share declined from 21 % in 2008 to 17 % in the IP.
that the prices of the Union industry were dropping
The average prices of those imports are generally lower
subject to severe price pressure and significant under
than those of the dumped imports from the countries
cutting by the dumped imports from Turkey and
concerned. Even when the applicable anti-dumping duty
Russia. In a normal market situation the Union
is taken into account, the prices of those imports remain
industry should have a possibility of minimising the
low and comparable with the prices of Russian and
impact of any unit cost increase by at least keeping the
Turkish imports and are below the average prices of
normal price level, which was clearly not possible in the
the Union producers.
situation of price pressure exerted by artificially cheap
dumped imports from the countries concerned.
(58) However, it is noted that for the countries under anti-
dumping measures (as for all third countries) only limited
statistical information and average prices are available
(63) Consequently, the claim is rejected and it is definitely
and the established price difference is not necessarily
concluded that any negative effect of contraction in
conclusive and may be a result of a different product
demand is not such as to break the causal link
mix. Moreover, imports from countries under anti-
between the injury suffered by the Union industry and
dumping measures show a clear downward trend.
the dumped imports from Russia and Turkey.
Hence, the conclusion that they were not breaking the
causal link between injury to the Union industry and the
increased dumped imports from Turkey and Russia.
(64) In
the
absence
of
any
other
claim
or
comments,
the
content of recitals 94 to 106 of the provisional Regu
lation, including the conclusion that the dumped imports
(59) With
regard
to
imports
from
other
third
countries,
their
from the countries concerned have caused material injury
market share declined during the period considered from
to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6)
7 % in 2008 to 6 % in the IP while those of Russia and
of the basic Regulation is hereby confirmed.
Turkey increased. The average prices of those imports
were generally higher than the dumped imports from
the countries concerned and close to the average prices
of the Union producers and as such are considered not
to break the causal link between injury to the Union
F. UNION INTEREST
industry and the increased dumped imports from
(65) Following the provisional disclosure, the IB claimed that
Turkey and Russia. Consequently, the claim is rejected
imposition of any measures would lead to a situation in
and the provisional conclusion that imports from third
which ERNE Fittings, a complainant would have a
countries are not breaking the causal link is confirmed.
monopoly-like position in the Union market.
(60) The
Turkish
Government
also
argued
that
any
injury
suffered by the Union industry would be caused by the
(66) It
is
noted
in
this
regard
that
ERNE
is
only
one
of
two
increased cost of production resulting from contraction
complainants and that the second one — INTERFIT — is
in demand.
similar in size to ERNE. In addition, data in the

provisional Regulation concerning the sampled Union
producers also included a third Union producer —
Virgilio CENA & Figli. Moreover, there is a significant
number of smaller companies in the Union producing
(61) It is noted in this regard that, as already stated in recital
and selling the product under investigation and there
101 of the provisional Regulation, the financial and
are significant imports from other sources. Given the
economic crisis of 2008/2009 is in all likelihood the
above, it is considered that there is no risk of monopol
reason behind the decreased consumption for pipe
isation of ERNE’s position.

---

L 27/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
29.1.2013
(67) In
the
absence
of
any
other
comments,
recitals
107
to
and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned.
117 of the provisional Regulation, including the
Imported products produced by any other company
conclusion that no compelling reasons exist against the
not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this
imposition of measures on the dumped imports from the
Regulation with its name and address, including entities
countries concerned are hereby confirmed.
related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit
from these rates and will be subject to the duty rate
applicable to ‘all other companies’.
G. DEFINITIVE MEASURES
1. Injury elimination level
(74) Any
claim
requesting
the
application
of
an
individual
(68) In the absence of any specific comments, the content of
company anti-dumping duty rate (e.g. following a
recitals 118 to 120 of the provisional Regulation is
change in the name of the entity or following the
hereby confirmed.
setting up of new production or sales entities) should
be addressed to the Commission ( 1 ) forthwith with all
relevant information, in particular any modification in
2. Definitive measures
the company’s activities linked to production, domestic
and export sales associated with, for example, that name
(69) In
view of the conclusions reached with regard to
change or that change in the production and sales
dumping, injury, causation and Union interest, and in
entities. If appropriate, the Regulation will then be
accordance with Article 9 of the basic Regulation, it is
amended accordingly by updating the list of companies
considered that a definitive anti-dumping duty should be
benefiting from individual duty rates.
imposed on imports of the product concerned orig
inating in Russia and Turkey at the level of the lowest
of the dumping margin and injury elimination level
found, in accordance with the lesser duty rule, which is
(75) All
parties
were
informed
of
the
essential
facts
and
in all cases the dumping margin.
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping
duty on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings of iron
(70) For
Russia,
in
the
absence
of
cooperation
by
Russian
or steel originating in Russia and Turkey and the
exporting producers, a countrywide dumping margin
definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of
was calculated as explained in recitals 21 to 31 of the
the provisional duty (‘final disclosure’). They were also
provisional Regulation and that margin is hereby
granted a period within which they could make repre
confirmed.
sentations subsequent to this disclosure.
(71) For
Turkey,
given
that
the
level
of
cooperation
was
(76) Following the final disclosure, submissions were received
considered to be relatively low, the residual dumping
from the complainant as well as from two cooperating
margin was based on a reasonable method leading to a
exporting producers from Turkey and the IB. Both
margin which is higher than the highest among the indi
Turkish producers and the IB requested and have
vidual margins of the three cooperating companies as
been granted hearings.
explained in recital 49 of the provisional Regulation,
and that residual dumping margin is hereby confirmed.
(77) The complainant agreed with all findings as disclosed.
(72) On the basis of the above, the proposed duty rates are:
The oral and written comments submitted by two
Turkish exporters and the IB were a reiteration of the
comments already made following the provisional
Definitive anti-
disclosure. It is noted that none of the interested
Country Company
dumping duty
parties contested the underlying data.
(%)
Russia All
companies 23,8
Turkey RSA 9,6
(78) A justification and a reply to the claim for the appli
cation of the asymmetrical method including zeroing in
Sardogan 2,9
the dumping calculation is provided in recitals 24 to 33
Unifit 12,1
above. The use of Turkish Lira for the establishment of
All other companies 16,7
export price patterns is explained and the relevant claim
addressed in recital 29 above. The use of arithmetical
average prices instead of weighted average prices in iden
(73) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates
tifying patterns of export prices is explained and the
specified in this Regulation were established on the
relevant claim addressed in recital 30 above . The
basis of the findings of the present investigation.
claim to include the profit margin achieved on the
Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that
ocean freight into the export price is described and
investigation with respect to those companies. These
dismissed in recital 19 above. The claim that no cumu
duty rates (as opposed to the countrywide duty
lative assessment of Turkish and Russian imports is
applicable to ‘all other companies’) are thus exclusively
applicable to imports of products originating in the
( 1 ) European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate H,
countries concerned and produced by the companies
Office N105 08/20, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGI.

---

EN
29.1.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
27/9
warranted in view of differences in geographical concen
2. The
rate
of
the
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
applicable
to
tration of Turkish and Russian sales is described and
the net free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products
dismissed in recitals 43 and 44 above. The claim that
described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the companies
Union industry suffered no injury given their increased
listed below, shall be as follows:
market share is addressed and dismissed in recitals 48 to
50 above.
Anti-
TARIC
(79) Given
that
following
the
final
disclosure
no
arguments
Country Company
dumping
duty (%)
additional code
that would influence the outcome of the assessment of
the case were brought forward, no modification of the
Russia All
companies 23,8
—
findings as detailed above is warranted.
Turkey RSA
Tesisat
Malzemeleri
San 9,6 B295
H. DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL
ve Ticaret A, Küükky,
DUTY
Istanbul
(80) In
view
of
the
magnitude
of
the
dumping
margin
found
SARDOAN Endüstri ve
2,9 B296
and given the level of the injury caused to the Union
Ticaret, Kurtky Pendik,
industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts
Istanbul
secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty
imposed by the provisional Regulation be definitively
UNIFIT BORU BALANTI
12,1 B297
collected to the extent of the amount of the definitive
ELEM. END. MAM. SAN.
VE TC. A, Tuzla, Istanbul
duty imposed,
All other companies 16,7 B999
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
3. Unless
otherwise
specified,
the
provisions
in
force
concerning customs duties shall apply.
1. A
definitive
anti-dumping
duty
is
hereby
imposed
on
imports of tube and pipe fittings (other than cast fittings,
flanges and threaded fittings), of iron or steel (not including
Article 2
stainless steel), with a greatest external diameter not exceeding
609,6 mm, of a kind used for butt-welding or other purposes,
The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty
currently falling within CN codes ex
7307
93
11,
pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 699/2012 on imports of
ex 7307 93 19
and
ex 7307 99 80
(TARIC
codes
certain tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel originating in
7307 93 11 91,
7307 93 11 93,
7307 93 11 94,
Russia and Turkey shall be definitively collected.
7307 93 11 95,
7307 93 11 99,
7307 93 19 91,
7307 93 19 93,
7307 93 19 94,
7307 93 19 95,
Article 3
7307 93 19 99,
7307 99 80 92,
7307 99 80 93,
7307 99 80 94, 7307 99 80 95 and 7307 99 80 98) and orig
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that
inating in Russia and Turkey.
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, 17 January 2013.
For the Council
The President
E. GILMORE

---

Document Outline

• �

---