Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1450 of 13 July 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (other than stainless steel), of circular cross-section, of an external diameter exceeding 406,4 mm, originating in the People’s Republic of China 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 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/804 (2), the European Commission imposed anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (other than stainless steel), of circular cross-section, of an external diameter exceeding 406,4 mm, originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the original measures’). The investigation that led to the imposition of the original measures will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the original investigation’.

(2) The anti-dumping duties currently in force are at rates ranging between 29,2 % and 41,4 % on imports from the sampled exporting producers, 45,6 % on the non-sampled cooperating companies and a duty rate of 54,9 % on all other companies from the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’ or ‘China’).

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

(4) The request for review was submitted on 10 February 2022 by the European Steel Tube Association (‘the applicant’ or ‘ESTA’) on behalf of the Union industry of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (other than stainless steel), of circular cross-section, of an external diameter exceeding 406,4 mm in the sense of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. 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 continuation or recurrence of injury to the Union industry.

(5) 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 12 May 2022 the Commission initiated an expiry review with regard to imports into the Union of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (other than stainless steel), of circular cross-section, of an external diameter exceeding 406,4 mm, originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the country 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 (3) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(6) Following the publication of the Notice of Initiation, the Chinese cooperating exporting producers questioned whether the fact that none of the sampled Union producers in the original investigation participated in the request for this review implied a full recovery from the dumped and injurious imports for the companies in question.

(7) The Commission first observed that the exporting producers did not put into question the fact that the request met the conditions contained in Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. Indeed, it was launched by the European Steel Tube Association representing more than 25 % of the total Union production and was supported by Union producers representing more than 50 % of the total EU production. Second, the Union producer Huta Batory, was sampled in both investigations, the original one and the expiry review. Third, Valcovni Trub Chomutov AS, the second sampled producer in the original investigation, supported the expiry review request but was not sampled by the Commission. Finally, the other two companies that had been sampled in the original investigation, Arcelor Mittal Tubular Products Roman and Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, have exited or are in the process of exiting the Union market. Consequently, the claim was rejected.

(8) Moreover, the exporting producers argued that an expiry review shall be initiated when the request contains sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury and that a positive determination shall be supported by factual evidence. To support their argument they stressed that the Chinese exporting producers will never know what the normal value is because of the different methods used by resorting to prices in a representative country.

(9) The Commission noted that it examined the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided and determined that there was sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of the present investigation, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. In any case, the exporting producers have not provided an example of insufficient evidence, thus, this claim was not supported by any proper reasoning. Regarding the normal value, the exporting producers had ample opportunity to verify the method(s) used and the normal value calculated in the request. Consequently, their claim was rejected.

(10) Furthermore, exporting producers stated that the Union producers’ business operations of the product concerned are much more dependent on the conditions of overseas markets than on the conditions in the Union and that the deterioration of the applicants’ export performance since 2019 cannot be ascribed to imports originating in China. They also claimed that, besides the poor export performance, part of the negative development trends in the Union was also attributed to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in 2020. In addition, they argued that the cost of production per tonne that was reported in the request, that is between € 1 245 and € 1 291, was considerably lower than what was reported in the initial investigation.

(11) The Commission noted that at the stage of the request, it is sufficient, on the basis of the information reasonably available to the applicant, to provide evidence showing that there is likelihood of either continuation or recurrence of injury should the measures be allowed to lapse. In this respect, even if the claims by the exporting producers were correct that the economic situation of the Union industry deteriorated due to factors other than the imports from China, the arguments presented did not put into question the fact that the imports from China remained significant in absolute terms and in market share. Furthermore, the evidence provided in the request indicated that injury is likely to recur should the measures be allowed to lapse. Consequently, the claim was rejected.

(12) The exporting producers also claimed that Tenaris’ economic performance, before and after the impact of the pandemic, was in a strong and normal condition. In the case of Tubos Reunidos SA, sales value remained at the same level for 3 consecutive years, starting in 2018 and then from 2020 onwards sales values have picked-up. Only export sales to third countries have declined, except for the US market. To support their arguments about the situation of the EU producers, they provided evidence of the two companies’ ambitious planning to either invest and expand or upgrade their production facilities in the Union.

(13) The Commission noted that injury indicators are not analysed at the level of individual producers, but at the level of the entire Union industry. As indicated in recital 11 above, the request contained sufficient evidence with regard to the entire Union industry, about the continuation or recurrence of injury should the measures be allowed to lapse. Consequently, the argument was rejected.

(14) The exporting producers also argued that the Union market faces rapid increases in imports from Thailand, that have a great influence on the effect of the measures implemented and the market position of the applicants. In addition, the safeguard measures also cover the product concerned and will remain in place until 30 June 2024.

(15) The Commission noted that, concerning the imports from Thailand, the parties failed to show how their argument would put into question the evidence contained in the request regarding continuation/recurrence of injury. Regarding the safeguard measures, anti-dumping measures address a different situation than safeguard measures. In addition, the steel safeguard measures do not prevent the imposition of anti-dumping measures within the free-of-safeguard duty quotas. The claim was therefore rejected.

(16) The investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021 (the ‘review investigation period’ or the ‘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 2018 to the end of the review investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(17) 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, the Union producers, trade unions, the known producers in the People’s Republic of China and the authorities of the People’s Republic of China, known importers, users, traders, as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of the expiry review and invited them to participate.

(18) 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.

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

(20) 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 the largest representative volumes of production and sales of the like product in the Union that can reasonably be investigated within the time available, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation; and on the basis of the geographical spread of the sample. This sample consisted of three Union producers. The sampled Union producers accounted for almost 76 % and 67 % of the total production and sales volumes, respectively, of the known Union producers of the like product. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample but no comments were received. Consequently, the sample was confirmed. The sample is representative of the Union industry.

(21) 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.

(22) Only one unrelated importer provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. In view of the minimal number, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary.

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

(24) Two exporting producers/group of exporting producers in the PRC provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. In view of the low number, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary, and to investigate all the exporting producers that came forward.

(25) The Commission sent a questionnaire concerning the existence of significant distortions in the PRC within the meaning of Article 2(6a) (b) of the basic Regulation to the Government of the People’s Republic of China (‘GOC’).

(26) The Commission also sent questionnaires to the sampled Union producers, unrelated importers, users, Union producers’ association and exporting producers. The same questionnaires had also been made available online (4).

(27) The Commission received questionnaire replies from the three sampled Union producers, one unrelated importer, the Union producers’ association and the two exporting producers/group of exporting producers.

(31) In their comments following final disclosure the cooperating exporting producers, Daye Special Steel Co. Ltd., Zhejiang Pacific Seamless Steel Tube Co. and Yangzhou Chengde Steel Pipe, Co. Ltd, questioned the alleged absence of the Union producers, which were sampled in the original investigation, from this expiry review investigation and the reasons for them not being included in the sample this time. In addition, they noted that Huta Batory was not listed as one of the sampled Union producers in this expiry review. Furthermore, they indicated that they could not assess if the determination of recurrence of injury was linked to changes in the sample between the two investigations.

(32) The Commission noted that the argument brought.by the cooperating exporting producers has been addressed in recital 7. In particular, the Union producer Huta Batory, was sampled in both investigations, the original one and the expiry review investigation. This company is now known as Alchemia S.A..

(33) As far as the other companies are concerned, as explained in recital 20, the Union producers were sampled on the basis of the largest representative volumes of production and sales of the like product in the Union, that can reasonably be investigated within the time available. In the absence of comments on the sample, the sample was confirmed and found to be representative of the Union industry. Furthermore, even though the sample changed between the original investigation and this expiry review, the exporting producers did not submit any evidence that the sample was not representative. In addition, when assessing the situation of the Union industry and the recurrence of injury, the Commission also bases its analysis on macroeconomic indicators relating to all Union producers including those that were sampled in the original investigation. On this basis, this claim was rejected.

(34) On 21 April 2023, the Commission disclosed the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to maintain the anti-dumping duties in force. All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the disclosure.

(35) The comments made by interested parties were considered by the Commission and taken into account, where appropriate. The parties who so requested were granted a hearing.

(36) The product under review is the same as in the original investigation, namely certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (other than stainless steel), of circular cross section, of an external diameter exceeding 406,4 mm, currently falling under CN codes 7304 19 90, ex 7304 29 90, 7304 39 88 and 7304 59 89 (TARIC code 7304299090) (‘the product under review’).

(37) Certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (other than stainless steel), of circular cross section, of an external diameter exceeding 406,4 mm are used in a wide range of applications, for example transportation of oil, gas, liquids and fluids, in the construction business for piling, for mechanical uses, boiler tubes and oil and country tubular goods (‘OCTG’) for casing in the oil industry.

(38) The product concerned by this investigation is the product under review originating in the People’s Republic of China.

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

(41) In the original investigation period (6), the Chinese exporting producers exported to the Union more than 42 thousand tonnes of the product concerned, representing a market share of around 26 % of the Union market at the time.

(42) In the current investigation, for the period considered and the review investigation period, the statistical data on imports of the product concerned reported in Comext and the 14(6) Database showed a considerably lower volume of imports than the volume of exports declared by the cooperating exporting producers. Therefore, the Commission considered that, in this particular case, the statistical information was not reliable and could not be used to determine the volume of imports from the PRC and the market share of the Chinese exporting producers. It thus based its findings related to the volume of imports into the Union of the product concerned and the market share of the Chinese exporting producers on the verified data of the cooperating exporting producers and the information in the review request.

(43) During the review investigation period, the cooperating exporting producers exported to the Union around 2,9 thousand tonnes of the product concerned, which represented a market share of between [2,5-3,5 %] of the Union market (see Table 3).

(44) The cooperating exporting producers’ production during the review investigation period accounted only for around 12 % of the total estimated production of the product under review in the PRC (7). Therefore, the Commission considered it likely that during the review investigation period, the total import volume into the EU of all the Chinese exporting producers (not sampled and verified within the investigation) exceeded the volume of 2,9 thousand tonnes declared by the cooperating Chinese exporting producers, and the market share of the Chinese exporting producers exceeded in all likelihood the [2,5-3,5 %] indicated in Table 3 below.

(45) On this basis the Commission concluded that during the review investigation period the Chinese exporting producers continued to export, although in lower quantities, the product under review to the Union.

(46) Given the sufficient evidence available at the initiation of the investigation tending to show, with regard to the PRC, the existence of significant distortions within the meaning of point (b) of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated the investigation on the basis of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.

(47) In order to obtain information it deemed necessary for its investigation with regard to the alleged significant distortions, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the GOC. In addition, in point 5.3.2 of the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited all interested parties to make their views known, submit information and provide supporting evidence regarding the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation within 37 days of the date of publication of the Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union. No questionnaire reply was received from the GOC and no submission on the application of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation was received within the deadline. Subsequently, the Commission informed the GOC that it would use facts available within the meaning of Article 18 of the basic Regulation for the determination of the existence of the significant distortions in the PRC.