Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/635 of 16 April 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain welded pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloyed steel originating in Belarus, the People’s Republic of China and Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 11(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) By Regulation (EC) No 1256/2008 (2), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain welded tubes and pipes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Belarus, the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’), Russia, Thailand and Ukraine (‘the original measures’). The measures took the form of an ad valorem duty ranging from 10,1 % to 90,6 %.

(2) By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/110 (3), the Commission re-imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain welded tubes and pipes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Belarus, the PRC and Russia and terminated the proceeding for imports originating in Ukraine, following an expiry review (hereinafter ‘the previous expiry review’).

(3) The anti-dumping duties currently in force are at rates of 10,1 % and 16,8 % on imports from the sampled exporting producers in Russia, 20,5 % on all other companies in Russia, 90,6 % on imports from all exporting producers in the PRC and 38,1 % on imports from all exporting producers in Belarus.

(4) Following the publication of a Notice of impending expiry (4), the European Commission (‘the Commission’) received a request for a review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(5) The request for review was lodged on 25 October 2019 by the Defence Committee of the welded steel tubes industry of the European Union (‘the applicant’) acting on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of certain welded pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel. The request for review was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry.

(6) Having determined, after consulting the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, on 24 January 2020 the Commission initiated an expiry review with regard to imports of certain welded tubes and pipes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Belarus, the PRC and Russia (‘the countries concerned’) on the basis of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (5) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(7) The investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019 (‘review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2016 to the end of the review investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(8) In the Notice of Initiation, interested parties were invited to contact the Commission in order to participate in the investigation. In addition, the Commission specifically informed the applicant, other known Union producers, trade unions, the known producers in Belarus, the PRC and Russia and the authorities of those countries, known importers, users, traders, as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of the expiry and invited them to participate.

(9) Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the expiry review and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.

(10) At initiation, the Commission informed interested parties that it would have to seek cooperation by at least one exporting producer in an appropriate representative country for Belarus, pursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation. The Commission also informed authorities in Mexico, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and USA of the initiation and invited their exporting producers to participate. Interested parties had an opportunity to comment and to provide submissions in this regard (see below Section 3.1.2).

(11) After disclosure the authorities of Belarus argued that in the request for review the applicant did not properly demonstrate the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury.

(12) The Commission considered that the request for review contained sufficient evidence for the initiation of the investigation, as explained in recital (6). Moreover, as explained in Section 3.1.2 and 5, the investigation demonstrated the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury as regards the imports from Belarus.

(13) The argument was therefore dismissed.

(14) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it might sample the interested parties in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

(15) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. The Commission selected the sample on the basis of production and sales volumes of the product under review, ensuring a good geographical spread. This sample consisted of three Union producers. The sampled Union producers accounted for around 40 % of the estimated total Union production and 38 % of the estimated total Union sales volume of the product under review.

(16) The Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample. The Commission received no comments on the sample. The sample was thus considered representative of the Union industry.

(17) In order to decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked unrelated importers to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation.

(18) No unrelated importers provided the requested information. Therefore, sampling was not necessary.

(19) In order to decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all exporting producers in Belarus, the PRC and Russia to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. In addition, the Commission asked the Mission of the Republic of Belarus to the European Union, the Mission of the People’s Republic of China to the European Union and the Mission of the Russian Federation to the European Union to identify and/or contact other exporting producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.

(20) Three exporting producers from Belarus provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. Given the low number of producers that came forward, the Commission considered that sampling was not necessary. The three exporting producers were therefore requested to complete the questionnaire intended for the exporting producers.

(21) Two exporting producers from Russia came forward, expressing their willingness to participate in the investigation. Given the reduced number of producers that came forward, the Commission considered that sampling was not necessary. The two exporting producers were requested to complete the questionnaire intended for the exporting producers.

(22) No producers from the PRC provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. Therefore, there was no cooperation from the Chinese producers and the findings with regard to the imports from the PRC are made on the basis of the facts available pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

(23) Copies of the questionnaires were made available on DG Trade’s website when the case was initiated.

(24) Questionnaire replies were received from the three sampled Union producers and one distributor in the Union.

(25) Questionnaire replies were received also by the three cooperating producers in Belarus while only one of the two Russian exporting producers that came forward at initiation provided a questionnaire reply and cooperated with the proceeding.

(26) The Commission sought and checked all the information deemed necessary for the investigation.

(27) Prior to the entry into force of COVID-19 restrictions, the Commission made a verification visit to the premises of Arcelor Mittal Tubular Products in Poland. During this visit, the production process, raw-materials used and the by-products obtained were verified.

(29) On 2 February 2021, the Commission disclosed the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to maintain the anti-dumping duties in force regarding imports from the countries concerned. All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the disclosure.

(30) The comments made by four interested parties were considered by the Commission and taken into account, where appropriate. No requests for a hearing were received.

(31) The product under review is the same as in the original investigation and the previous expiry review, namely welded tubes and pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel, of circular cross-section and of an external diameter not exceeding 168,3 mm, excluding line pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines, casing and tubing of a kind used in drilling for oil or gas, precision tubes and tubes and pipes with attached fittings suitable for conducting gases or liquids for use in civil aircraft, currently falling under CN codes ex 7306 30 41, ex 7306 30 49, ex 7306 30 72 and ex 7306 30 77 (TARIC codes 7306304120, 7306304920, 7306307280 and 7306307780) originating in Belarus, the People’s Republic of China and Russia (‘the product under review’ or ‘WPT’).

(32) WPT is mainly used for the transportation of gases and liquids in plumbing, heating, ventilation systems, etc.

(34) These products are therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

(35) In accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether the expiry of the measures in force would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping from Belarus, the PRC, or Russia.

(36) As mentioned in recital (25), three producers in Belarus cooperated with the investigation and provided a reply to the questionnaire. However, none of the three producers reported a significant amount of export sales to the EU. In fact, during the review investigation period, imports of the product under review from Belarus virtually disappeared as compared to the investigation period of the original investigation (i.e. from July 2006 to June 2007). According to Comext statistics (Eurostat), imports of WPT from Belarus accounted for less than 4 tonnes in the review investigation period, compared to more than 29 000 tonnes during the original investigation. A similarly low level of imports was noted during the previous expiry review.

(37) In view of the virtual absence of imports of the product under review from Belarus, no conclusions could be drawn on the continuation of dumping to the EU during the review investigation period. Therefore, the Commission also investigated the likelihood of recurrence of dumping.

(38) The Commission investigated in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation the likelihood of recurrence of dumping, should the measures be repealed. The following additional elements were analysed: the production capacity and spare capacity in Belarus, relationship between prices in the Union and Belarus; relationship between export prices to third countries and prices in Belarus; relation between export prices to third countries and the price level in the Union and the attractiveness of the Union market.

(39) In accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, since Belarus is not a member of the WTO and is listed in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7), normal value shall be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in an appropriate representative country.

(40) After initiation, the Commission sought cooperation by at least one exporting producer located in a potential representative country. To this end, the Commission contacted the authorities in eight known steel producing countries, namely Mexico, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and USA.

(41) The Commission did not receive any cooperation from the above-mentioned countries; however, it did receive one full questionnaire reply, from a producer located in Russia, which was subject to the same investigation. Therefore, the Commission initially considered Russia to be an appropriate choice of representative country for Belarus.

(42) In accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, all known producers concerned, and the authorities of the countries concerned, were consulted on the selection of the representative country. No comments were received from interested parties.

(43) However, following the remote cross-checking, the cooperation from the producer in Russia was considered to be insufficient (see Section 3.3.1 below). Pursuant to Article 2(7), 2nd subparagraph, of the basic Regulation, when selecting an appropriate representative country, due account shall be taken of ‘any reliable information made available at the time of selection, and in particular of cooperation by at least one exporter and producer in that countr y’. In the absence of sufficient cooperation and reliable information from any of the Russian producers of WPT, the Commission thus decided to disregard Russia as an appropriate representative country.

(44) As a consequence, in the absence of cooperation from any other producer in a potential representative country, the normal value was determined based on the prices actually paid in the Union for the like product, per basic product type on an ex-works basis, as stipulated in Article 2(7), 1st subparagraph, of the basic Regulation. Separate normal values were established for black and galvanized (8) products.

(45) After disclosure, the authorities of Belarus argued that the Commission failed to demonstrate that options other than the prices actually paid in the Union for the like product were not possible for the determination on the normal value. In their view, the Commission did not actively search for cooperation from the authorities of potential representative countries. Moreover, the Belarusian authorities argued that, instead of the Union prices, the Commission should have used the normal value determined for Russia or, as an alternative, the available data of Thailand used to construct the normal value for China, as described below in recital (150).

(46) As regards the first point the Commission confirms that, as explained in recitals (40) and (41) above, it actively searched for cooperation in eight potential representative countries but did not receive any. The letters sent by the Commission in this regard are available in the file open for consultation from interested parties.

(47) With regard to the second point, as explained in recital (43), Russia was provisionally selected as a representative country for Belarus. However, due to the absence of sufficient cooperation and reliable information from at least one exporting producer, the Commission had no choice but to disregard Russia as a representative country. As for Thailand it must be noted that the selection of an appropriate representative country for Belarus, in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, requires the cooperation by at least one exporter and producer in that country. By contrast, this is not a requirement for the construction of the normal value for China pursuant to Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation. Consequently, Thailand was not an appropriate representative country under Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation for Belarus.

(48) The claim was therefore dismissed.

(49) During the review investigation period, none of the cooperating producers in Belarus exported the product under review to other third country markets in significant quantities.

(50) Nevertheless, since it appeared from Belarusian trade statistics on imports and exports that the product under review was actually exported from Belarus to other third countries in significant quantities during the review investigation period, it was concluded that no producers actually exporting the product under review came forward and cooperated with the investigation.

(51) Therefore, the Commission informed the authorities of Belarus that due to the absence of significant cooperation from producers actually exporting the product under review, the Commission might apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation concerning the findings with regard to Belarus.

(52) In their comments to the intended application of Article 18, the Belarusian authorities argued that it was more appropriate to use the data provided by the three cooperating producers rather than the import and export statistics. Moreover, they claimed, and reiterated the claim after disclosure, that the Harmonised system (HS) codes used to assess the exports of the product under review were not appropriate. Finally, they argued that the Commission failed to take into account re-exports as, in their view, the exports of the product under review to third countries (i.e. Russia) amounted to 2 400 tonnes and included exports made by a company that purchases the product under review in Russia, performs the galvanisation service and re-exports it back.

(53) As regards the first claim, the Commission clarified that it did neither contest nor disregard the data of the three cooperating Belarusian producers. The three companies simply did not export significant quantities of the product under review that could be used by the Commission to assess the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping.

(54) As regards the second claim, the Commission noted that almost the totality of Belarusian exports of the product under review are made to Russia. The Commission cross-checked the statistics on exports from Belarus to Russia (at 8-digit level) with the imports into Russia (at 10-digit level) based on Global Trade Atlas (‘GTA’) (9) statistics. The Commission confirmed that the product under review falls into the description for the codes at 8-digit level used for Belarusian exports as well as under the codes at 10-digit level used for the Russian imports. In the end, the Commission used the Russian import figures at 10-digit level, since they provided more detailed information on the different types of WPT.

(55) As regards the third claim, the Commission noted three points: first, from the information collected, the exports of the product under review from Belarus to Russia during the review investigation period amounted to more than 4 800 tonnes. Second, the export quantities of galvanized product amounted to less than 1 000 tonnes, according to the same sources. Finally, the fact that no cooperation was received by the re-exporting producer invoked by the Belarusian authorities justified the Commission’s assessment on the basis of Article 18 of the basic Regulation given the absence of cooperation from producers in Belarus that would export significant quantities of the product under consideration.