L 23734 Official Journal of the European Union 9.9.2009 COMMISSION DECISION of 4 September 2009 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of welded tubes, pipes and hollow profiles of square or rectangular cross-section, of iron other than cast iron or steel other than stainless originating in Belarus, Turkey and Ukraine (2009/698/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 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 (') (the ‘basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9 thereof, After consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: (") ) O] O] 1. PROCEDURE 1.1. Initiation of the proceeding On 13 November 2008, pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (%) (‘notice of initiation’), the anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Community of welded tubes, pipes and hollow profiles of square or rectangular cross- section, of iron other than cast iron or steel other than stainless (‘hollow section’), originating in Belarus, Turkey and Ukraine (‘the countries concerned’). The proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 29 September 2008 by the Defence Committee of the Welded Steel Tubes Industry of the European Union (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the total Community production of hollow section. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of hollow section originating in the countries concerned and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding. 1.2. Parties concerned and verification visits The Commission officially advised the complainant, all known Community producers, importer/traders and users known to be concerned, the exporting producers, their associations and the authorities of the countries concerned and known producers of the like product in L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. C 290, 13.11.2008, p. 13. (6) the envisaged analogue country (the USA) of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation. All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing. In order to allow exporting producers in Belarus to submit a claim for individual treatment (1T, if they so wished, the Commission sent claim forms to the exporting producers known to be concerned as well as to the authorities of Belarus. Two groups of companies in Belarus claimed IT pursuant to Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. In view of the apparent large number of exporting producers in Turkey and Ukraine, Community producers and importers involved in this investigation, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, exporting producers in Turkey and Ukraine, Community producers, and importers and representatives acting on their behalf were requested to make themselves known and to provide, as specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned within 15 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. For Turkey, out of the 13 companies or company groups which had replied to the sampling questions, a sample of four companies or company groups was selected. However, one of the sampled companies did not provide information concerning the existence of two related Turkish producers within the sampling exercise but came forward with this information at a very late stage. Nevertheless, the two related companies were given an additional opportunity to submit a full questionnaire response. However, the information submitted by the related companies was incomplete to an extent that made it impossible to perform a dumping calculation. Consequently, the company was excluded from the sample. Another Turkish producer had not been included in the original sample but had requested indi- vidual examination in accordance with Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation and submitted a full questionnaire within the time limits. It was then included in the sample. In terms of export volume the four sampled