(1)

The European Commission (‘the Commission’) has received a request pursuant to Articles 13(3) and 14(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (‘the basic Regulation’) to investigate the possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed on certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People's Republic of China by imports consigned from India, whether declared as originating in India or not, and to make such imports subject to registration.

(2)

The request was lodged on 3 January 2017 by the Defence Committee of the Seamless Stainless Steel Tubes Industry of the European Union (‘the applicant’).

(3)

The product concerned by the possible circumvention is certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel (‘SSSPT’) (excluding such pipes and tubes with attached fittings suitable for conducting gases or liquids for use in civil aircraft). It is currently falling within CN codes 7304 11 00, 7304 22 00, 7304 24 00, ex 7304 41 00, 7304 49 10, ex 7304 49 93, ex 7304 49 95, ex 7304 49 99 and ex 7304 90 00, originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the product concerned’). This is the product to which the measures that are currently in force apply.

(4)

The product under investigation is the same as that defined in the previous recital, but consigned from India, whether declared as originating in India or not, currently falling within the same CN codes as the product concerned (‘the product under investigation’).

(5)

The measures currently in force and possibly being circumvented are anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1331/2011 (2) (‘the existing measures’).

(6)

The request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the anti-dumping measures imposed on the product concerned are being circumvented by imports of the product under investigation consigned from India.

(7)

The evidence submitted is as follows:

(8)

The request shows that a significant change in the pattern of trade involving exports from the People's Republic of China and India to the Union has taken place following the imposition of the measures, without sufficient due cause or economic justification for such a change other than the imposition of the duty.

(9)

This change appears to stem from the consignment of the product concerned via India to the Union, either after having undertaken completion operations or not. The applicant has provided sufficient prima facie evidence showing that the value added during the completion operation is lower than 25 % of the manufacturing cost.

(10)

Furthermore, the request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the remedial effects of the existing anti-dumping measures on the product concerned are being undermined both in terms of quantity and price. Significant volumes of imports of the product under investigation appear to have replaced imports of the product concerned. In addition, there is sufficient prima facie evidence that imports of the product under investigation are made at prices below the non-injurious price established in the investigation that led to the existing measures.

(11)

Finally, the request contains sufficient prima facie evidence that the prices of the product under investigation are dumped in relation to the normal value previously established for the product concerned.

(12)

Should circumvention practices via India covered by Article 13 of the basic Regulation, other than transhipment and assembly operations be identified in the course of the investigation, the investigation may also cover these practices.

(13)

In light of the above, the Commission has concluded that sufficient evidence exists to justify the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation and to make imports of the products under investigation subject to registration, in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.

(14)

In order to obtain information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the known exporters/producers in India and to the known associations of exporters/producers in the PRC, to the known importers and to the known associations of importers in the Union and to the authorities of India and the PRC. Information, as appropriate, may also be sought from the Union industry.

(15)

In any event, all interested parties should contact the Commission, but not later than the time-limit set in Article 3 of this Regulation, and request a questionnaire within the time-limit set in Article 3(1) of this Regulation, given that the time-limit set in Article 3(2) of this Regulation applies to all interested parties.

(16)

The authorities of India and the PRC will be notified of the initiation of the investigation.

(17)

All interested parties are invited to make their views known in writing and to provide supporting evidence. Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request in writing and show that there are particular reasons why they should be heard.

(18)

In accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, imports of the products under investigation may be exempted from registration or measures if the importation does not constitute circumvention.

(19)

Since the possible circumvention may take place outside the Union, exemptions may be granted, in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation, to producers of the products under investigation in India that can show that they are not related (3) to any producer subject to the measures (4) and that are found not to be engaged in circumvention practices as defined in Article 13(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation. Producers wishing to obtain an exemption should submit a request duly supported by evidence within the time-limit indicated in Article 3(3) of this Regulation.

(20)

Pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, imports of the products under investigation shall be made subject to registration in order to ensure that, should the investigation result in findings of circumvention, anti-dumping duties of an appropriate amount can be levied from the date on which registration of such imports was imposed.

(21)

In the interest of sound administration, time-limits should be stated within which:

(22)

Attention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party's making itself known within the time-limits laid down in Article 3 of this Regulation.

(23)

In cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time-limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.

(24)

Where it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made of facts available.

(25)

If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.

(26)

Failure to give a computerised response shall not be deemed to constitute non-cooperation, provided that the interested party shows that presenting the response as requested would result in an unreasonable extra burden or unreasonable additional cost. The interested party should immediately contact the Commission.

(27)

The investigation will be concluded, pursuant to Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation, within nine months of the date the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

(28)

It is noted that any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5).

(29)

Interested parties may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings. The Hearing Officer acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission investigation services. The Hearing Officer reviews requests for access to the file, disputes regarding the confidentiality of documents, requests for extension of time-limits and requests by third parties to be heard. The Hearing Officer may organise a hearing with an individual interested party and mediate to ensure that the interested parties' rights of defence are being fully exercised.

(30)

A request for a hearing with the Hearing Officer should be made in writing and should specify the reasons for the request. The Hearing Officer will also provide opportunities for a hearing involving parties to take place which would allow different views to be presented and rebuttal arguments offered.

(31)

For further information and contact details interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer's web pages on the Directorate-General for Trade's website: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/trade-policy-and-you/contacts/hearing-officer/,