27.3.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities L 83/3 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 540/2002 of 26 March 2002 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain welded tubes and pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel originating in the Czech Republic, Poland, Thailand, Turkey and the Ukraine 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 (), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000 (3, and in partic- ular Article 7 thereof, After consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: 0] 0] 0] A. PROCEDURE On 29 June 2001 the Commission announced by a notice (notice of initiation’) published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (%), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Community of certain welded tubes and pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel originating in the Czech Republic, Poland, Thailand, Turkey and the Ukraine. The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged in May 2001 by the Defense Committee of the Welded Steel Tube Industry of the European Union (‘the complainant’), on behalf of producers representing a major proportion of the Community production of certain welded tubes and pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel. The complaint contained evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting there- from, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding. The Commission officially advised the exporting produ- cers and importersftraders known to be concerned as well as their associations, the representatives of the exporting countries concerned, users, suppliers, the complainant ~ Community  producers and  other Community producers, of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the oppor- tunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation. A number of exporting producers in the countries concerned, as well as Community producers, Community users and importers/traders made their views known in writing. All parties who so requested L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2. C 183, 29.6.2001, p. 3. within the above time limit and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted the opportunity to be heard. In view of the large number of importers and exporting producers in the exporting countries concerned, and in conformity with Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 384/ 96 (the ‘basic Regulation’), it was considered appropriate to examine whether sampling should be used. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would indeed be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, importers and exporting producers were requested, pursuant to Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, to make themselves known within two weeks of the initia- tion of the proceeding and to provide information on their imports and resale in the Community (importers) or their production, turnover and exports to the Community (exporting producers) during the invest- igation period (see recital 11) as well as the names and the activities of all related companies. Seven importers agreed to be included in the sample and provided the requested information within the deadline. Five of them were chosen for the sample on the basis of largest representative volume of imports which could be reasonably investigated within the time available. Two of the five companies did not provide the information requested in the questionnaire for importers and were therefore considered as non-cooperating according to Article 18 of the basic Regulation. In view of the number of exporting producers concerned sampling had only to be applied for Turkey. Thirteen exporting producers agreed to be included in the sample and provided the requested information within the dead- line. Six of them (of which four were related two by two) were chosen for the sample on the basis of largest representative volume of exports which could be reason- ably investigated within the time available. In order to allow exporting producers in the Ukraine to submit a claim for market economy treatment (MET) or individual treatment if they so wished, the Commission sent to all Ukrainian companies known to be concerned a market economy status and an individual treatment claim form. The Commission also sent questionnaires to all Community producers, all exporters/producers, all importers as well as all users and suppliers known to be concerned as well as to all the parties which made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation.