COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 926/2009
of 24 September 2009
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty impod on imports of certain amless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of
China
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community ( 1 ) (the basic Regulation) and in particular Articles 9 and 10 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A. PROCEDURE
1. Provisional measures
(1) On 9 July 2008, the Commission published a notice ( 2 )
initiating an anti-dumping proceeding on imports into
the Community of certain amless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China (the PRC). On 8 April 2009, the Commission, by Regu
lation (EC) No 289/2009 ( 3 ) (the provisional Regulation)
impod a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain amless pipes and tubes of iron or steel orig inating in the PRC.
(2) The proceeding was initiated following a complaint
lodged by the Defence Committee of the Seamless Steel
Tube Industry of the European Union (the complainant) on behalf of producers reprenting a major
proportion, in this ca more than 50 %, of the total Community production of certain amless pipes and tubes of iron or steel.
(3) As t out in recital 13 of the provisional Regulation, the
investigation of dumping and injury covered the period
from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 (‘investigation period’
or ‘IP’). The examination of trends relevant for the asssment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2005 to the end of the IP (period considered).
2. Subquent procedure
(4)
Subquent to the disclosure of the esntial facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impo provisional anti-dumping measures (provisional disclosure), veral interested parties made written submissions making their views known on the provi sional findings. The parties who so requested were also granted the opportunity to be heard.
(5) The
Commission continued to ek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. In particular, the Commission nt an additional questionnaire to the sampled Community producers to collect further information concerning the market devel opments and the evolution of the main injury indicators after the end of the IP. Additional verification visits were carried out after the imposition of the provisional measures at the premis of the following producers of certain amless pipes and tubes in the EU:
— Vallourec & Mannesmann Deutschland GmbH, Düsldorf, Germany,
— Vallourec & Mannesmann France, Boulogne- Billancourt, France,
— Tenaris-Dalmine SpA, Dalmine, Italy,
— Tubos Reunidos SA, Amurrio, Spain,
— Productos Tubulares SA, Valle de Trapaga, Spain,
— in addition, a verification visit was carried out at the premis of the complainant at Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
( 1 ) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. ( 2 ) OJ C 174, 9.7.2008, p. 7. ( 3 ) OJ L 94, 8.4.2009, p. 48.
(6) The Commission also conducted a further desk analysis
of the questionnaire replies of all four sampled exporting
producers, including in particular the verification of the transaction listing provided by the following exporters:
— Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co., Ltd,
— Hengyang Valin Steel Tube Co., Ltd,
— Shandong Luxing Steel Pipe Co. Ltd,
— Tianjin Pipe International Economic & Trading Corporation.
(7) All parties were informed of the esntial facts and
唐玄宗considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain amless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the PRC and the definitive collection of the amounts cured by way of the provi sional duty (final disclosure). They were also granted a period within which they could make reprentations subquent to this disclosure.
(8) The oral and written comments submitted by the
interested parties were considered and, where appro
priate, the findings were modified accordingly.
3. Sampling
(9) In the abnce of any comments concerning the
孕妇的症状sampling of exporting producers in the PRC and of
Community producers, the provisional findings in recitals 11 to 12 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
(10) The product concerned is certain amless pipes and
tubes, of iron or steel, of circular cross ction, of an
external diameter not exceeding 406,4 mm with a
Carbon Equivalent Value (CEV) not exceeding 0,86 according to the International Institute of Welding (IIW) formula and chemical analysis ( 1 ), originating in the PRC (the product concerned) and currently falling within CN codes ex 7304 19 10, ex 7304 19 30, ex 7304 23 00, ex 7304 29 10, ex 7304 29 30, ex 7304 31 20, ex 7304 31 80, ex 7304 39 10, ex 7304 39 52, ex 7304 39 58, ex 7304 39 92, ex 7304 39 93, ex 7304 51 81, ex 7304 51 89, ex 7304 59 10, ex 7304 59 92 and ex 7304 59 93 ( 2 ).
(11) After the publication of the provisional Regulation, a
clerical mistake was found in the numbering of the Technical Report mentioned in the footnote of recital 14 of the provisional Regulation for the determination of the Carbon Equivalent Value (CEV). The correct reference is Technical Report, 1967, IIW doc. IX-555- 67 published by the International Institute of Welding (IIW).
(12) After provisional disclosure, the China Iron and Steel
Association (CISA) claimed that the CN codes covering the product concerned were also covering a number of other products which would fall outside the scope of the investigation such as products with an outside diameter exceeding 406,4 mm or with a CEV exceeding 0,86 and, as a conquence, the import figures ud in the investi gation would be overstated. In this respect, it has to be noted that products with an outside diameter exceeding 406,4 mm or with a CEV exceeding 0,86 according to the IIW formula and chemical analysis are not concerned by the proceedings. Furthermore, no evidence was found at any of the sampled exporting producers that the products are produced in the PRC in significant quantities. Therefore, it has been concluded that there is no credible evidence regarding the import of any significant quantities of such Chine products into the EC.
(13) Following the final disclosure, CISA reiterated the claim
that oil country tubular goods (OCTG) should be excluded from the definition of the product concerned and pointed out that other countries, including the USA, treat OCTG as belonging to a parate market for the purpo of anti-dumping investigations. Similar claims were also made by the Chine government (Mofcom).
( 1 ) The CEV shall be determined in accordance with Technical Report, 1967, IIW doc. IX-555-67, published by the International Institute of Welding (IIW). ( 2 ) As defined in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 291, 31.10.2008, p. 1). The product coverage is determined in combining the product description in Article 1(1) and the product description of the corre sponding CN codes taken together.
(14) The abovementioned claims have been analyd in detail
and it has been found that the different types of amless
pipes and tubes, including OCTG, included in the
product definition share the same basic physical,
chemical and technical characteristics, which means that
they belong to the same product category. The fact that
the different product types differ to a certain extent in
their characteristics, cost and lling prices is normal.
Moreover, the fact that other investigating authorities
carry out investigations into OCTG only may well be
due to the particularities of such investigations, i.e. the
scope of the underlying complaint. Indeed, it was found
that the US authorities did not have to investigate
whether OCTG share the same basic characteristics as
other amless pipes and tubes. Furthermore, the
Community industry provided evidence of the inter
changeability between plain-end OCTG and other
products subject to the investigation.
(15) It was also argued that in defining the product concerned
undue importance was given to elements such as the wall
thickness, external diameter, and CEV threshold, whilst
no proper attention had been paid to technical properties
such as high pressure and high corrosion resistance and
to the existence of special American Petroleum Institute
(API) standards for OCTG.
(16)First of all, it must be noted that since the wall thickness
is not ud in the definition of the scope of the investi
gation, the external diameter and the CEV threshold
remain the most appropriate elements to identify the
product concerned. The external diameter is also an
element ud in distinguishing the product for statistical
and customs purpos. As regards the CEV threshold, it
defines the level at which a product can be welded and
the threshold is t at 0,86 in order to parate products
which can easily be welded from tho which can not.
Secondly, information provided by the Community
industry shows that OCTG, as other types of tubes,
may have both high and low corrosion/pressure
resistance. Thus neither the corrosion nor the pressure
resistance could be ud as a criterion in defining the
product concerned. Thirdly, the special API standards
exist as regards OCTG and line pipes becau they are
ud in the petroleum ctor. However, tubes ud in
other ctors are also subject to similar standards,
although issued by other organisations (e.g. ASTM). As
a result, the fact that standards are issued by one or the
other organisation cannot be an element to define the
product scope of an anti-dumping investigation. In
conclusion, neither CISA nor Mofcom has submitted
valid alternative elements to better define the product
scope, nor have they ever propod criteria that would
be more appropriate to define the product concerned,
apart from the high corrosion/pressure resistance
mentioned above. In addition, neither party propod a
different CEV level as a more appropriate threshold.
Therefore, the claims on the definition of the product
concerned are rejected.
(17)In view of the above, it is definitively concluded that the
product concerned incorporates, inter alia, OCTG ud
for drilling, casing and tubing in the oil industry, and
recitals 14 to 19 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
definitively confirmed.
C. DUMPING
1. Market economy treatment (MET)
(18)In the abnce of any comments, the content of recitals
20 to 27 of the provisional Regulation concerning MET
findings is hereby definitively confirmed.
2. Individual treatment (IT)
(19) Further to provisional disclosure, the complainant
claimed that one exporting producer provisionally
granted IT should not have received IT, as among
other things, it was allegedly majority state owned.
(20) Further investigation showed that the Chine state did
(indirectly) have some stake in the said company, but
during the IP the state was a minority shareholder.
However, the shareholding changed significantly at the
end of 2008 (post-IP) when the Chine state acquired
more shares of the holding company and the state thus
嗫嚅的读音became a majority shareholder. Conquently, the
Commission considered that the exporting producer in
question would not fulfil the requirements of Article 9(5)
of the basic Regulation and should not be granted IT.
(21)Following the final disclosure, the said company
reiterated its argument that the incread shareholding
of the Chine state occurred after the IP. Moreover,
the company argued that the increa in shareholding
was clearly and solely intended to provide financial
support to the holding company becau of the
financial crisis. In particular, the said company claimed
that the incread shareholding had no impact on the
management structure, the composition of the Board of
Directors and the commercial activities. It also claimed
成长的回眸that the change in shareholding had no effect on the
company’s decisions regarding export activities that
remain to be made independently from the state. The
company also submitted that no evidence has been
shown that in this ca state influence would be such
as to permit circumvention of measures if the company
would be given an individual rate of duty.
(22) In order to be granted IT, exporting producers must
demonstrate that they fulfil all the criteria enumerated
in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. One of the
criteria is that the majority of shares belong to private
persons. However, as regards the said company, this
criterion has not been met since the end of 2008.
(23)Conquently, despite the fact that the change of
ownership happened only after the IP (but still before
the conclusion of the investigation) and considering the
prospective nature of the findings with regard to IT, it is
concluded that this company should not be granted IT,
as it did not fulfil the requirements of Article 9(5) of the
basic Regulation.
(24) In the abnce of any other comments concerning IT, the
content of recitals 28 to 32 of the provisional Regu
lation, other than tho concerning the company
mentioned in recitals 19 to 23 above, is hereby
definitively confirmed.
3. Normal value
3.1. Analogue country
(25) Following the provisional disclosure, three parties
submitted that the USA was not an appropriate
analogue country since the market conditions in the
USA and in the PRC are significantly different. It was
also submitted that the normal value calculation was
bad on the data of only one producer, related to a
producer in the Community, and thus were not repre
ntative.
(26)It is noted that the basic Regulation requires that the
analogue country be lected in a not unreasonable
manner. The parties mentioned above failed to provide
substantiated evidence that the choice of the USA was
unreasonable. In particular, they did not question the
competitiveness of the US market, the lack of which
for example could have an impact on the level of
prices established. It is also noted that none of the
parties in question suggested any alternative choice for
the analogue country.
(27)In view of the above, it is definitively concluded that the
USA is an appropriate analogue country and recitals 33
天赋潜能测试to 38 of the provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed.
3.2. Determination of normal value
(28) In the abnce of any comments concerning the deter
mination of normal value, the provisional findings in
recitals 39 to 44 of the provisional Regulation are
hereby confirmed.
4. Export Price
(29)In the abnce of any comments concerning the deter
mination of export price, the content of recital 45 of the
provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
5. Comparison
(30) Following provisional disclosure, one exporting producer
pointed out that the simplification applied to the product
control number (in order to increa the level of
comparability between the product concerned and the
like product from the analogue country) resulted in an
unfair comparison as it treated veral types of the
amless pipes and tubes as one product category.
Following this comment, it was decided that a different
regrouping of the product control numbers that would
allow for a similar level of comparability can be applied
—
namely with regard to pipe diameter and wall
thickness.
(31) Following provisional disclosure, Chine export prices at
ex-works level have been revid downwards in order to
take into account all transport costs. At the same time,
normal value was revid upwards due to some
corrections concerning allowances for transport and
discounts.
(32) In the abnce of any other comments in respect of
comparison, the content of recitals 46 and 47 of the
provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
妈妈不在家
6. Dumping margin
(33) In the abnce of any comments concerning the
dumping margin calculation, and subject to the changes
mentioned at recitals 30 and 31, the content of recitals
48 to 51 of the provisional Regulation is hereby
confirmed.
(34) The amount of dumping finally determined, expresd as
a percentage of the cif net free-at-Community-frontier
price, before duty, is as follows:
D. INJURY
1.Community production, Community industry and
Community consumption
(35)CISA claimed that, according to information relead by
a specialid agency (Steel Business Briefing), there were
at least 40 Community producers in 2007 of the like
product in the EU-27 with a production of around 5,8
million tonnes and this would contradict the relevant
data contained in the provisional Regulation. CISA also
claimed that, according to information relead by the
World Steel Association, Community consumption was
of around 4,6 million tonnes in 2007, i.e. far higher than
what was reported in recital 57 of the provisional Regu
lation. A Chine exporting producer also made similar
claims.
(36) The examination of the information provided showed
that the figures reported refer to all amless pipes and
tubes and not to the like product as defined in the
provisional Regulation and in recitals 10 to 17 above,
and include other products such as large pipes and tubes
(i.e. with a diameter exceeding 406,4 mm) and stainless
steel pipes and tubes. This explains the discrepancy
between the information mentioned in recital 35 above
and that contained in the provisional Regulation. It
should also be noted that names and locations of all
known Community producers of the product concerned were contained in the non-confidential
version of the complaint. If CISA had considered that
there were any other producers of the product
concerned in the EU, it should have provided in due
cour sufficient evidence to identify them, so that any
such company would also have been considered.
(37) The claims mentioned above are therefore dismisd and
the content of recitals 53 to 58 of the provisional Regu
lation is hereby confirmed.
2. Imports from the country concerned
(a) V o l u m e , m a r k e t s h a r e o f t h e i m p o r t s
c o n c e r n e
d a n d i m p o r t p r i c
e s
(38) Following comments submitted by CISA, it is clarified
that recital 60 of the provisional Regulation should be
intended as meaning that the OCTG and power
generation market gments each reprented less than
5 % of total imports from the PRC. In the abnce of any
claims or other comments, recitals 59 to 63 of the
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(b) P r i c e u n d e r c u t t i n g
(39) An exporting producer, three Community producers and
the complainant submitted comments relating to the
calculation of the undercutting and injury margins.
The comments were analyd and, where appropriate,
the calculations were amended.(40) One exporting producer claimed that the adjustments
made to compare on a fair basis the prices of the
Chine imports and the prices of the corresponding
product types sold by the Community industry were
not adequate, since they did not include an amount for
the lling, general and administrative expens (SG&A)
and profit of an independent importer. On the contrary,
the complainant claimed that the level of the
adjustments was excessively high. As for the claim of
the exporting producer, it was found that often Chine
exporting producers and Community producers were
lling to the same customers. Thus, a further adjustment
to import prices was not justified. After examination of
the evidence provided, it was concluded that the claims
should be dismisd and the two parties were informed
of the reasons therefor.
(41) The complainant claimed that the calculation of the
differences in level of trade was incorrect since Chine
exporting producers also directly sold to urs and that
for such sales no level of trade adjustment is warranted.
This claim was found to be correct for some Chine
exporting producers and the level of trade adjustment
was accordingly revid. Furthermore, the exporting
producer mentioned in recital 40 above argued that,
becau of significant differences in sales volumes
between its own imports and the sales of the
简笔画入门
Community industry, the difference in level of trade
should not be established by simply comparing the
respective percentage of sales to urs and suggested
another formula for the calculation of the revid level
of trade adjustment. However, the suggested formula was
not considered appropriate since it would distort the
result. Therefore, the claim was rejected.
(42)On the basis of the above, the methodology described in
recital 64 of the provisional Regulation is hereby
confirmed and the undercutting margin calculated as
explained in recital 65 of the provisional Regulation is
established at 29 %.
3. Situation of the Community industry
(43) CISA claimed that a number of sampled Community
producers had not submitted completed replies, so that
the reprentativeness of the sample would be impaired
becau of the low level of cooperation. It should be
pointed out that, apart from the company indicated at
point (ii) of recital 66 of the provisional Regulation,
which only submitted partial information, all other
companies in the sample have provided by the definitive
stage of the investigation all the information requested.
转让合同怎么写Even when excluding the sole company that had only
provided partial information, the reprentativeness of
the sample would in any ca remain at about 60 % of
the total Community production. The claim was
therefore rejected.
