Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/3193 of 19 December 2024 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of seamless pipes and tubes originating in 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 2320/97 (2) the Council imposed anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel, originating in, inter alia, Russia. By Commission Decision 2000/70/EC (3), an undertaking was accepted from an exporter in Russia. By Council Regulation (EC) No 1322/2004 (4), it was decided to no longer apply the measures in force on imports from, inter alia, Russia as a matter of prudence in connection with an anti-competitive behaviour of certain Union producers in the past (see recital (9) of that Regulation).

(2) By Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 (5) the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes originating in, inter alia, Russia, repealed Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 and Council Regulation (EC) No 348/2000 (6), terminated the interim and expiry reviews of the anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes or iron or non-alloy steel originating, inter alia, in Russia and terminated the interim reviews of the anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in, inter alia, Russia.

(3) By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 (7) the Council, following an expiry review, imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes originating, inter alia, in Russia.

(4) Following a partial interim review investigations in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Council, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 795/2012 (8) and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1269/2012 (9) respectively, amended the definitive measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 with regard to a number of Russian exporting producers.

(5) By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1469 (10), the Commission, following an expiry review, imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, originating, inter alia, in Russia (‘the previous expiry review’).

(6) By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 (11), the Commission imposed definitive safeguard measures against imports of certain steel products, including seamless stainless tubes and pipes and other seamless pipes.

(7) By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1029 (12), the Commission amended Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 to prolong the safeguard measure on imports of certain steel products, including seamless stainless tubes and pipes and other seamless pipes.

(8) By Regulation (EU) 2022/428 (13), the Council imposed restrictive measures to imports of a number of products originating in or have been exported from Russia, prohibiting imports of the product concerned.

(9) By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1782 (14), the Commission amended Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159, including the prolongation of the safeguard measure on imports of certain steel products, including seamless stainless pipes and tubes and other seamless pipes.

(10) The anti-dumping duties currently in force on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes range from 24,1 % to 35,8 % for imports originating in Russia.

(11) Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry of the anti-dumping measures in force (15), the Commission received a request for a review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

(12) The request for review was submitted on 30 June 2023 by the European Steel Tube Association (‘ESTA’ or ‘the applicant’) on behalf of the Union industry of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The request for review was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures against imports originating in Russia would be likely to result in a recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry.

(13) 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 2 October 2023 the Commission initiated an expiry review with regard to the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports into the Union of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel originating in Russia (‘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 (16) (‘the Notice of Initiation’).

(14) The investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023 (‘review investigation period’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2020 to the end of the review investigation period (‘the period considered’).

(15) 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, the representatives of the exporting country, trade unions, known importers, users, traders, as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of the expiry review and invited them to participate.

(16) 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.

(17) The Russian Federation submitted comments on 8 November 2023. It argued that the request did not contain any evidence of dumping from the Russian exporters or any proof that the revocation of the antidumping duties would lead to injurious imports. It also argued that there was no likelihood of recurrence of injury due to Russian imports.

(18) As regards the first allegation, the Commission noted that due to sanctions, there were no exports to the Union during the review investigation period. Therefore, in line with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the applicant assessed the likelihood of recurrence of dumping. For this assessment it based itself on Russian export prices to third countries. The Russian Federation criticised the comparison of CIF export prices to third countries with domestic ex-works prices. The Commission noted that using CIF prices instead of ex-works prices is a simplification that is to the benefit of the Russian exporters, as it implied not deducting some costs from observed CIF prices before the comparison. Thus, the Commission disagreed that this simplification put into question the fairness of the comparison, which is meant to show recurrence of dumping, as opposed to a specific dumping amount.

(19) As regards the allegation about the no likelihood of recurrence of injury, the Commission noted that based on export prices to Egypt and Türkiye, the applicant established significant price undercutting and underselling margins and on that basis it concluded that Russian imports continued to represent a potential threat to the Union industry if there would be no restrictive trade measures. The claim was therefore rejected.

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

(21) In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. The Commission had selected the sample on the basis of volume of production and sales of the like product in the Union in the review investigation period, whilst account was also taken of geographical spread. This sample consisted of three Union producers, two of which were related. The sampled producers represented [47 %-53 %] of the estimated volume of production and more than 45 % of the estimated total volume of sales of the like product in the free market in the Union. The Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisionally selected sample.

(22) The Commission received one comment, from the applicant, on the provisional sample selection. The applicant suggested that, due to the fact that two of the provisionally sampled Union producers were related, the Commission should replace one of these two related producers with another Union producer which was unrelated to the others (17). The Commission considered that the provisional sample was more representative in terms of production and EU sales volumes. Moreover, the company which had been put forward by the applicant as alternative was until January 2023 (18) owned by an investor from the country concerned, i.e. the Russian Federation that, since March 2022, had been sanctioned by the European Union. According to the applicant, that fact had allegedly had an impact on the company’s access to its bank accounts, disrupting the company’s sales (19). Hence, the economic performance of the proposed company may not have been representative at least during part of the review investigation period.

(23) The Commission therefore rejected the request of the applicant and confirmed the preliminary sample. No comments were received.

(24) On 6 June 2024, after submitting questionnaire reply, one of the sampled Union producers, Dalmine S.p.A, informed the Commission that it withdrew its cooperation with the investigation.

(25) The Commission informed all interested parties that it intended to proceed with the sample of the two remaining sampled Union producers. The two producers, unrelated to each other, represented [33 %–45 %] of the estimated total volume of production and more than 30 % of the estimated total volume of sales of the like product in the free market in the Union. The Commission invited all parties to comment on this reduced sample, but it did not receive any comments.

(26) The final sample of Union producers thus constituted of the two unrelated Union producers S.C. Silcotub S.A. and Benteler Steel/Tube GmbH.

(27) 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.

(28) No unrelated importer provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample. Hence, the Commission decided not to apply sampling for importers.

(29) To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all known exporting producers in Russia to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation. In addition, the Commission asked 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.

(30) None of the producers in Russia provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample.

(31) The Commission sent questionnaires to three sampled Union producers. The same questionnaires had also been made available online (20) on the day of initiation.

(32) Questionnaire replies were received from the three originally sampled Union producers, namely Dalmine SpA, S.C. Silcotub S.A and Benteler Steel/Tube GmbH.

(34) Moreover, the Commission carried out a remote crosscheck of the macro-indicators submitted by the applicant.

(35) On 24 October 2024, 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.

(36) In response to the disclosure, the Russian Federation provided comments which are addressed under recitals (72) and (73) below.

(37) The product under review is the same as in the original investigation and previous expiry reviews namely certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel (‘SPT’), of circular cross-section, 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 (‘the product under review’).

(38) The product under review currently falls under CN codes ex 7304 11 00 , ex 7304 19 10 , ex 7304 19 30 , ex 7304 22 00 , ex 7304 23 00 , ex 7304 24 00 , ex 7304 29 10 , ex 7304 29 30 , ex 7304 31 80 , ex 7304 39 50 , ex 7304 39 82 , ex 7304 39 83 , ex 7304 51 89 , ex 7304 59 82 and ex 7304 59 83  (21) (TARIC codes 7304 11 00 10, 7304 19 10 20, 7304 19 30 20, 7304 22 00 20, 7304 23 00 20, 7304 24 00 20, 7304 29 10 20, 7304 29 30 20, 7304 31 80 30, 7304 39 50 30, 7304 39 82 30, 7304 39 83 20, 7304 51 89 30, 7304 59 82 30 and 7304 59 83 20).

(39) The product under review is used in a wide variety of applications, like line pipes to transport liquids, in the construction business for piling, for mechanical uses, gas tubes, boiler tubes and oil and country tubular goods (‘OCTG’) for drilling, casing and tubing for the oil industry.

(40) SPT take very different forms at the time of their delivery to the users. They can be e.g. galvanised, threaded, delivered as green tubes (i.e. without any heat treatment), with special ends, different cross-sections, cut-to-size or not. There are no generalised standard sizes for the tubes, which explains why most of the SPT are made upon customers’ order. SPT are normally connected by welding. However, in particular cases they can be connected by their thread or be used alone, although they remain weldable. The investigation showed that all SPT share the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics and the same basic uses.

(41) The product concerned by this investigation is the product under review originating in Russia.

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

(44) The Commission noted that after 24 February 2022, in response to Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine, the Union expanded its sanctions and that no exports of seamless pipes and tubes originating in Russia have entered the Union market during the review investigation period. The Commission also noted that during the review investigation period, the product concerned was covered by the safeguard measures on steel implemented in the Union, which was due to expire on 30 June 2024 (Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1029).

(45) During the review investigation period and following the implementation of sanctions described in the previous recital, imports of product under review from Russia virtually disappeared. According to Eurostat statistics, there were no imports of SPT from Russia in the review investigation period, and the highest level of imports during the period considered was reached in 2021 with approximately three million tonnes. Consequently, imports of SPT from Russia accounted for 0,0 % market share of the total Union market in the review investigation period, down from 0,2 % in 2021.

(46) As mentioned in recital (30), none of the exporters/producers from Russia cooperated in the investigation. Therefore, the Commission informed the authorities of Russia that due to the absence of cooperation, the Commission might apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation concerning the findings about the Russian producers. The Commission did not receive any comments or requests for an intervention of the Hearing Officer in this regard.

(47) Consequently, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the findings in relation to the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping were based on facts available, in particular information provided in the request, readily available trade statistics and Eurostat data.

(48) As mentioned in recital (46) above, due to the non-cooperation from exporting producers in Russia, the Commission used facts available to establish the normal value. To this end, the Commission used data provided by the applicant for the review investigation period based on domestic prices for Russia for the most common product (pipes to GOST 8732, 57-159 mm) (22). On that basis, the normal value was 140 000 RUB/tonne, equivalent to 1 709 EUR/tonne, during the review investigation period (23).

(49) There were no exports of the product concerned to the Union during the review investigation period.

(50) In view of the absence of exports of the product concerned to the Union during the review investigation period, the Commission analysed the likelihood of recurrence of dumping in the next section.

(51) In accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the Commission investigated the likelihood of recurrence of dumping, should the measures be repealed. In this respect, the following additional elements were analysed, the exports to third countries, the production capacity and spare capacity in Russia and the attractiveness of the Union market.

(52) The normal value was established as explained in Section 3.2 above. The domestic ex-works Russian price of 1 709 EUR/tonne used as normal value is, according to the applicant, the lowest price corresponding to the most ordinary product in carbon steel (excluding alloyed steel), and any dumping calculation made on this basis would result in understating the actual dumping margin. Thus, the Commission considered that this is a prudent estimate without a negative bias towards the exporting producers.

(53) Due to lack of cooperation from exporting producers, the Commission used the GTA database to obtain export prices. As proposed in the request, the Commission obtained data at the most detailed level possible covering the full scope of the product concerned (SH6 7304.19/23/29/31/39/51/59). The Commission acknowledges that, as recognised in the request, this scope may include products that are outside the investigation scope. However, as clearly stated in the request, these products which do not fall under the product under review are more expensive than the product under review and thus would result in an overestimation of the export price.