2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 1
This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
►B COUNCILREGULATION(EC)No1531/2002
of14August2002
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of colour television receivers originating in
the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia and Thailand and terminating
theproceedingregardingimportsofcolourtelevisionreceivers originatinginSingapore
(OJ L 231, 29.8.2002, p. 1)
Corrected by:
►C1Corrigendum, OJ L 351, 28.12.2002, p. 116 (1531/2002)
▼B
COUNCILREGULATION(EC)No1531/2002
of14August2002
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of colour tele-
vision receivers originating in the People's Republic of China, theRepublic of Korea, Malaysia and Thailand and terminating theproceeding regarding imports of colour television receivers origi-
natinginSingapore
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
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 (1), and in particular Articles 9,
11(2) and 11(3) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after
consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A.PROCEDURE
1.Previousinvestigationsandexistingmeasures
(1)In April 1990 the Council, by Regulation (EEC) No 1048/90 (2),
imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of small-screen colour television receivers, i.e. those with a diagonalscreen size of more than 15,5 cm but not exceeding 42 cm
(‘SCTVs’), originating in the Republic of Korea (Korea).
(2)Subsequently, in July 1991, the Council, by Regulation (EEC)
No 2093/91 (3), imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on
imports of SCTVs originating, inter alia , in the People's
Republic of China (China).
(3)In April 1995, the Commission by Decision 95/92/EC (4) termi-
nated the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports of(CTVs) originating in Turkey, which had been initiated in
November 1992. At the same time, the Council, by Regulation
(EC) No 710/95 (
5), imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on
imports of CTVs witha diagonal screen size exceeding 15,5 cm,originating in Malaysia, China, Korea, Singapore and Thailand.Although this proceeding established that there were no longergrounds for differentiating between colour television receivers
according to their screen size, since anti-dumping measures
were already in force in respect of SCTVs originating in Chinaand Korea, the scope of the investigation and the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Regulation (EC) No 710/95 asregards China and Korea were limited to colour televisions with
a diagonal screen measurement exceeding 42 cm, i.e. large-
screen CTVs.
(4)In November 1998, the Council by Regulation (EC) No 2584/98(
6) amended Regulation (EC) No 710/95 as far as the duties
applicable to CTVs originating in China and Korea were
concerned in order to take account of the findings in Regulation
(EC) No 710/95 that there were no grounds for differentiatingbetween televisions according to their screen size.2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 2
(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No
2238/2000 (OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2).
(2) OJ L 107, 27.4.1990, p. 56. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EEC) No
2900/91, (OJ L 275, 2.10.1991, p. 24).
(3) OJ L 195, 18.7.1991, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 73, 1.4.1995, p. 84.
(5) OJ L 73, 1.4.1995, p. 3.
(6) OJ L 324, 2.12.1998, p. 1.
▼B
2.Expiryandinterim review investigations
(5)Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1)o f
the anti-dumping measures in force on imports of CTVs origi-nating in China, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand, the
Producers of European Televisions in Cooperation (Poetic),
requested an expiry review of the measures in force pursuant toArticle 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (the basic Regula-tion).
(6)The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of themeasures would be likely to result in the continuation or recur-
rence of dumping and injury to the Community industry. The
request also contained information which showed that thevarious markets involved and the product, itself, had undergonesignificant changes over the last few years. This information,together with the allegations on dumping and injury, led theCommission to conclude that an interim review of both dumping
and injury should also be carried out pursuant to Article 11(3) of
the basic Regulation.
(7)Having determined, after consultation of the AdvisoryCommittee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation ofan expiry and an interim review pursuant to Articles 11(2) and11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Commission published a
notice of initiation in the Official Journal of the European
Communities (
2) and commenced the investigation.
3.Initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning
Turkey
(8)On 15 July 2000, the Commission announced by a notice(Notice of Initiation) published in the Official Journal of the
European Communities (
3), the initiation of an anti-dumping
proceeding concerning imports of CTVs originating in orexported from Turkey.
(9)The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged inJune 2000 by Poetic, acting on behalf of Community producersrepresenting a major proportion, in this case more than 30 %, ofthe total Community production of CTVs. The complaint
contained sufficient evidence of dumping and of material injury
resulting therefrom to justify the initiation of an anti-dumpingproceeding.
4.Termination of the anti-dumping proceeding concerning
CTVsoriginatinginTurkey
(10)Given the complexity of the specific rules of origin applicable to
imports of CTVs, the examination of the origin of the CTVs
exported from Turkey could not be completed within the dead-line stipulated in Article 7 of the basic Regulation. Therefore,the dumping, injury and Community interest aspects of the casecould not be adequately examined and consequently no provi-
sional anti-dumping measures could be considered.
(11)The investigation was therefore continued to reach definitive
findings. Given the intention to obtain a global view of theimpact of the imports from all the countries concerned on theCommunity industry, the data gathered in the investigationconcerning Turkey was examined in conjunction with that gath-ered in the framework of the expiry and the interim reviews of
measures against China, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Thai-
land. However, given the findings on origin which are recalledin recitals 40 to 44, the Commission terminated the proceeding2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 3
(1) OJ C 278, 1.10.1999, p. 2.
(2) OJ C 94, 1.4.2000, p. 2.
(3) OJ C 202, 15.7.2000, p. 4.
▼B
as far as it concerned CTVs originating in Turkey by Decision
2001/725/EC (1).
5.Parties concernedbytheinvestigations
(12)The Commission officially informed the complainant Commu-
nity producers, other known Community producers, exportingproducers, importers and their associations, the European Office
of Consumers (BEUC) and the representatives of the exporting
countries about the initiation of the investigations. Interestedparties were given the opportunity to make their views knownin writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set inthe notices of initiation.
(13)A number of exporting producers in the countries concerned, as
well as Community producers made their view known in writing.
All parties who so requested within the above time limits andwho demonstrated that there were particular reasons why theyshould be heard were granted the opportunity to be heard orally.
(14)In view of the apparently large number of exporting producers of
the product concerned in the countries subject to the review
investigations, known from the request and from previous inves-tigations, the application of sampling techniques for theinvestigation of dumping was envisaged in indents 5(a) and (b)of the Notice of Initiation.
(15)However, only a limited number of exporting producers from
Korea, Singapore, China and Thailand made themselves known
and provided the information requested in the Notice of Initia-tion. Therefore, the use of sampling techniques was notconsidered necessary for any of the countries concerned.
(16)The Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be
concerned and to all other companies who made themselves
known within the deadlines set in the Notices of Initiation.Replies were received from five Community producers, fromthree unrelated importers, from five Turkish companies and theirrelated importers in the Community, from one Thai exportingproducer and its related importers in the Community and from
eight Chinese companies. However, no Korean, Malaysian and
Singaporean exporting producer provided a meaningful reply tothe questionnaire and, therefore, all companies known from thesampling exercise in these countries were considered as non-cooperators. The Commission informed them about the conse-
quences of this non-cooperation.
(17)The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed
necessary for the purpose of a determination of dumping, injuryand Community interest as well as to determine whether there isa likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of dumping andinjury and whether maintaining the measures would not be
against the Community interest. Verification visits were carried
out at the premises of the following companies:
(a) Community producers
Tecnimagen SA — Barcelona, Spain
Grundig AG — Nuremberg, GermanyPhilips Consumer Electronics — Eindhoven, The Nether-
lands
Industrie Formenti Italia Spa — Lissone, Italy
Seleco Formenti Spa — Pordenone, Italy.
(b) Exporters/producers and related sales companies2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 4
(1) OJ L 272, 13.10.2001, p. 37.
▼B
Turkey
Profilo Telra Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret AS, Istanbul
(including the related sales companies (i) PRO-EKS Dis
Ticaret AS, Istanbul, (ii) Savunma Gerecleri AS, Istanbul,
(iii) Elektrotem Elektronik Aletler Limited, Istanbul)
Beko Elektronik AS, Istanbul (including the related sales
company Ram Dis Ticaret, Istanbul)
Vestel Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret AS, Istanbul (including
the related sales companies: (i) Vestel Dis Ticaret AS,Istanbul, (ii) Vestel Dis Ticaret AS Ege Serbest Bolge SB,
Izmir, (iii) Vestel Bilisim Teknolojileri Sanayi ve Ticaret
AS, Istanbul, iv) Vestel Komunikasyon Sanayi ve TicaretAS, Izmir)
Izmir Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret AS, Izmir
Thailand
Thomson Television Thailand, Pathumthani, Thailand
(including the related sales company European AudioProducts (HK) Ltd, Shatin, New Territory, Hong Kong)
(c) Related importers in the Community
— Importers related to the Turkish exporters
Beko (UK) Ltd, Watford, United Kingdom
Beko Electronics Espana SL, Barcelona, Spain
Vestel Holland BV, Rotterdam, NetherlandsVestel Iberia, Madrid, Spain
— Importers related to Thomson Television Thailand
Thomson Multimedia Marketing France SA, Boulogne,
France
Thomson Multimedia Sales Spain, SA, Madrid, Spain
Thomson Multimedia Sales UK Ltd, West Malling, Kent,
United Kingdom
(d) Unrelated importers in the Community
Alba plc — Barking, United Kingdom.
(18)The investigation of dumping in the review investigations
covered the period from 1 January 1999 to 31 December 1999(review IP). The investigation of dumping covered the periodfrom 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000 (IP) as far as the anti-dumpingproceeding against Turkey is concerned. The examination of
trends in the context of the injury analysis for both investigations
covered the period from 1995 up to 30 June 2000 (periodconsidered), to take account of the existence of two differinginvestigation periods for dumping.
6.Market economy treatment ('MET') and individual treat-
ment
(19)Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, one Chinesecompany, Xiamen Overseas Chinese Electronic Co., Ltd (theapplicant company), requested MET and individual treatmentand was required to complete a claim form detailing all the rele-vant information required. After consulting the Advisory
Committee, it was decided not to grant MET to the applicant
company on the basis that the applicant company did not meetall of the criteria set in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
(20)After this decision was taken, it was found that the applicant
company had not actually exported any CTVs to the Community
during the review IP. Initially, it reported in its claim form andin its questionnaire response certain CTVs exports to theCommunity. However, at a subsequent stage of the investigationit was found that these CTVs were never released into free circu-2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 5
▼B
lation in the Community and that their final destination was a
third country. Thus, in the absence of any CTVs exports to theCommunity during the review IP, the individual treatment
request of the applicant company became irrelevant.
B.PRODUCTCONCERNEDANDLIKEPRODUCT
1.Productconcerned
(a)Product description
(21)The product concerned is CTVs with a diagonal screen size of
more than 15,5 cm, whether or not combined in the samehousing with a radio broadcast receiver and/or clock. This
product is currently classifiable within CN codes
ex 8528 1252, 8528 12 54, 8528 12 56, 8528 1258,ex 8528 1262 and 8528 1266.
(22)Regulation (EC) No 710/95 excluded from the definition of theproduct concerned D2MAC sets and high definition televisions(HDTVs) since these products, which introduced qualitativetechnical changes, were at that time still in the development
stage and were not available to the public except in very limited
circumstances. Regulation (EC) No 2584/98 confirmed that theseproducts should not be included in the scope of the product defi-nition, since the investigation had not brought to light any newfactual evidence, which would justify their inclusion. The samewas the case in the present investigation, in which no new
evidence justifying their inclusion was submitted. It is therefore
concluded that D2MAC sets and high definition televisions arenot covered by the present investigations.
(b)Arguments of the parties
(23)One importer requested the exclusion from the scope of the
investigation of the so-called internet-CTVs which integrate aninternet modem and computer operating system allowing access
to the internet via the TV screen and controlled by a remote
control unit which comprises a full keyboard. In the internet-CTV all the necessary modem circuitry is integrated into thebody of the television set, instead of having a separate set topbox.
(24)The importer argued that the exclusion was warranted in view ofthe differences in basic physical and technical characteristicsbetween CTVs and internet-CTVs and in view of the different
consumer perceptions of bothproducts.
(25)The differences in the basic physical characteristics of internet-
CTVs consisted in the additional internet components in theCTV which represent around 60 % of the total costs of theinternet-CTV and a keyboard integrated in the remote control.
(26)Regarding the basic technical characteristics it was argued thatthe internet CTV sends and receives data not via broadcastingtechnology but via the telephone system using the modem.Furthermore, it employs technology which is different from the
basic technology in CTVs; it incorporates a system for secure
access to the internet, secure socket layer (SSL), a browser tech-nology for the display of internet graphics on standard resolutionCTVs and a modem that translates digital signals into analogueones that can travel over a standard phone line.
(27)It was alleged that the different consumer perception of theproduct compared to standard CTVs was proven by the fact
that internet-CTV is sold at retail level at more than twice the
price of a CTV. Furthermore, it was argued that the integratedinternet circuit elements imparts an element to a standard CTVwhich is a distinct additional quality. In support of this it quotesthe case on video cassette recorders from Japan and Korea(VCRs) where it was concluded that in cases where a VCR is2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 6
▼B
combined in one housing with a CTV, this combination has to
be regarded as a different product.
(28)The applicant claimed that such exclusion was not warranted. Itdisputed the allegation that internet-CTVs had different basicphysical and technical characteristics and argued that the internetpart was comparable to the teletext in a CTV. Internet should be
considered as a more modern form of teletext and therefore an
additional feature of CTVs rather than a new product withoutthe basic characteristics of CTVs. Since CTVs with teletextwere covered by the investigation, CTVs with an internetconnection should also be covered by the investigation.
(29)The applicant also questioned the conclusions reached by theimporter regarding the different consumer perception arguingthat the internet-CTVs had only been recently launched. Itfurthermore argued that the high percentage of costs represented
by the Internet was due to the recent introduction of internet-
CTV. It provided evidence showing that at the time of the intro-duction of the teletext facility in CTVs, the costs of teletext wassubstantially higher than at present.
(30)It contested the example of the VCRs arguing that in a VCR/CTV combination the VCR has an independent function,whereas the internet function does not work without the CTV,but is rather an addition to the CTV.
(c)Findings of the investigation
(31)The investigation showed that an internet-CTV is a product
which combines in the same housing two technologies producingtwo sufficiently distinct end uses: on the one hand it allows thesending and receiving of electronic mail and accessing the worldwide web while on the other it allows viewing TV programmes.
Given this additional function, the CTV does not necessarily
determine the character of the entire product but it is rather theinternet function which takes predominance over the CTV.Indeed, sucha combination contains a specific element wh ichimparts an additional function to the internet CTV and allows it
to be considered as different for the purpose of the present anti-
dumping investigation.
(32)The above conclusions have been reached on the basis of theinformation gathered in the course of the investigation and
relating to the IP. Given the early stage of development of this
product and the fact that they were only available to the publicin small quantities, it cannot be excluded that the conclusionsreached in the present investigations would need to be revisedin light of further developments on this product in the future.
Thus, should a review of the measures in place be carried out
in the future, the situation of these products would have to bere-examined, on the basis of the information gathered in thatinvestigation, in order to determine whether such exclusionwould still be justified.
(33)Furthermore, it was found that despite differences in screensizes, in sound system, in broadcast system, in screen type andformat and in picture frequence, all CTVs shared the same basicphysical and technical characteristics and the same use and form
therefore one product.
2.Likeproduct
(34)In the course of the investigations, it was established that CTVs
originating in or exported from the countries concerned anddestined for the Community, share the same basic physical and
technical characteristics and end-uses as CTVs manufactured
and sold by the Community industry on the Community market.It was also found that there were no differences between theCTVs produced and sold in the countries concerned, includingTurkey which was used as an analogue country, and thoseexported to the Community, which were both identical to the2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 7
▼B
CTVs manufactured and sold by the Community industry on the
Community market. These products are therefore alike withinthe meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
C.ORIGIN
1.General
(35)CTVs frequently incorporate components and parts originating in
countries other than the country of manufacture or assembly ofthe finished product, with the result that CTVs may be consid-
ered as originating in a country other than the country of
manufacture or assembly. Thus, in accordance with the Commu-nity's consistent practice and pursuant to Article 1(3) of the basicRegulation, the examination of the origin of the CTVs exportedfrom the countries concerned was part of the anti-dumpinginvestigations.
(36)The issue of origin had already been examined in detail in
Council Regulation (EC) No 710/95, where the application of
the rules of origin led to a redistribution of the import volumesof CTVs between the different countries to reflect the originestablished during the investigation.
(37)For the purposes of the anti-dumping legislation, the origin ofthe products concerned is determined in accordance with thenon-preferential rules of origin, as provided by Article 22 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
establishing the Community Customs Code (
1). This is also the
case regarding Turkey, where Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on imple-menting the final phase of the Customs Union(
2) has not
established any derogation in this respect.
(38)In accordance withArticle 39 and Annex 11 of Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provi-
sions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (
3), specific
non-preferential rules of origin apply for CTVs. According tothese rules, a CTV originates in the country where the addedvalue of the assembly operations, and, if applicable, the incor-
poration of parts originating in the country of assembly
represents at least 45 % of the ex-works price of the CTV.When the 45 % rule is not met, the CTV originates in thecountry of origin of parts whose ex-works price represents morethan 35 % of the ex-works price of the CTV.
(39)It should be stressed that the findings set out below were estab-lished only for the purposes of the present anti-dumping
investigation and more particularly for the purposes of deter-
mining the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injuriousdumping.
2.ExportsfromTurkey
(40)It is recalled that the Commission terminated the proceeding
concerning CTVs originating in Turkey by Decision 2001/725/
EC (4). The findings in the framework of the latter proceeding
have shown that all CTVs exported from Turkey to the Commu-nity during the IP were declared as being of Turkish origin.(They were accompanied by a Single Administrative Documentindicating that the CTVs originated in Turkey). They were alsoaccompanied by an ATR certificate indicating that they were in2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 8
(1) OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 311,12.12.2000, p. 17).
(
2) OJ L 35, 13.2.1996, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 444/2002 (OJ L 68, 12.3.2002, p. 11).
(4) OJ L 272, 13.10.2001, p. 37.
▼B
free circulation in Turkey. However, in the course of that inves-
tigation all Turkish companies stated that their CTVs were not ofTurkishorigin.
(41)When applying the specific non-preferential origin rules, it was
established that the origin of all CTVs exported from Turkey to
the Community during the IP was other than Turkish. In parti-cular, it was found that for the exports of the investigatedcompanies which correspond to all exports of CTVs fromTurkey to the Community during the IP, the 45 % added value
rule was not met.
(42)Since the 45 % added value rule was not met, the origin had tobe determined on the basis of the 35 % value rule of the non-
originating parts/materials. In these circumstances, the origin ofthe cathode-ray colour television picture tube (CPT) virtuallydetermined the origin of the CTVs, since the ex-works price ofthe CPT represented, in almost all cases, at least 35 % of the ex-
works price of the CTV. It should be noted that there is no
production of CPTs in Turkey and, therefore, all CPTs wereimported.
(43)On the basis of the 35 % value rule of the non-originating parts/materials, exports to the Community were found to have theirorigin in certain exporting countries subjected to the reviewinvestigations, the Community or other third countries not
subject to any investigation.
(44)As for the CTVs exported from Turkey and originating in coun-tries for which the anti-dumping measures in force are the
subject of the present review (i.e. China, Korea and Malaysia),the quantities exported to the Community from Turkey havebeen considered as originating in those countries.
3.ExportsfromThailand
(45)The investigation showed that for all exports by the cooperating
exporting producer in Thailand to the Community during the
review IP, the 45 % added value rule was not met. Therefore,the origin had to be determined on the basis of the 35 % valuerule of the non-originating parts/materials. In this respect, it wasalso found that the origin of the CTVs would virtually be deter-
mined by the origin of the CPTs, which represented, in all but
one case, at least 35 % of the ex-works price of the CTVs. Thecooperating exporting producer did not use CPTs of Thai originbut of Korean and Malaysian origin. Furthermore, the companyimported a significant quantity of the other materials input to theCTVs production. Accordingly, it was concluded that the CTVs
exported from Thailand to the Community during the review IP
by the cooperating exporting producer were not of Thai originbut they were found to originate in either Korea or Malaysia.
(46)On the basis of information available from Eurostat, it wasestablished that all exports of CTVs from Thailand to theCommunity were made by the sole cooperating exportingproducer in this country. In view of the above findings regarding
the origin, all CTVs exported from Thailand to the Community
were treated as originating in Korea and Malaysia for thepurpose of the review investigations.
4.ExportsfromChina,Korea, MalaysiaandSingapore
(47)It should be noted that no cooperation was obtained from any
exporting producers in Korea, Malaysia or Singapore. Further-
more, none of the Chinese companies reported any exports of
CTVs to the Community during the review IP. Thus, it wasconsidered that CTVs originating in these four countries werethose reported in the Eurostat imports statistics as well as thoseexported from Turkey and Thailand which were found to be ofKorean, Malaysian or Chinese origin.2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 9
▼B
D.DUMPING
1.People'sRepublicofChina
(48)No Chinese producer with exports of CTVs to the Community
during the review IP cooperated in the investigation. However,one cooperating Turkishcompany, Vestel Elektronik Sanayi veTicaret AS, was found to be exporting significant quantities ofCTVs of Chinese origin. It was, therefore, considered appro-
priate to calculate an individual dumping margin for this
company.
(a)Analogue country
(49)Since the China is a non market economy country, an analogue
market economy third country had to be selected for the estab-
lishment of normal value in accordance with Article 2(7) of the
basic Regulation. For this purpose, the Notice of Initiationsuggested Singapore, which was also the proposal made in thereview request. Within the time limit specified in the relevantnotice of initiation, certain Chinese companies objected to this
approach and requested that the lowest normal value found in
the other countries subject to the investigation be used. OneChinese company suggested the use of Malaysia, Thailand orKorea.
(50)However, producers in Korea, Singapore and Malaysia did notcooperate with the investigation. Regarding Thailand, the onlycompany who cooperated with the investigation had no domesticsales of CTVs and, therefore, normal value could not be estab-lished for this country. Consequently, it was examined whether
Turkey could be used as an analogue country for establishing
normal value. Turkey was also proposed as an alternative optionto Singapore in the review request.
(51)Turkey was considered as a reasonable choice of analogue
country as it is a competitive market and it has significant
production and domestic consumption. There are severaldomestic producers leading to strong internal competition andTurkish sales of the product concerned are significant. ThreeTurkish producers which cooperated in the framework of the
investigation against Turkey, provided details concerning their
domestic sales and cost of production.
(52)In these circumstances, the Commission decided to use Turkey
as an analogue country. Since the IP of the investigation against
imports of the product concerned originating in Turkey over-lapped with the review IP for six months, normal value wasestablished only for the common period of the two investiga-tions, i.e. 1 July 1999 to 31 December 1999 (second half of thereview IP), and dumping calculations were made for this period.
(b)Normal value
(53)Due to the high inflation rate in Turkey during the second half
of the review IP, normal value was established for the shortestpossible meaningful period, i.e. on a monthly basis, in order toeliminate the effects of inflation.
(54)Domestic sales were considered to be sufficiently representativein comparison with the export sales. In addition, the Commissionservices examined whether the domestic sales of each company
could be considered as being made in the ordinary course of
trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.
(55)This was done by establishing the proportion of domestic sales
to independent customers, of eachexported product model, sold
in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market during thesecond half of the review IP. For those product models wheremore than 80 % by volume was sold at a profit on the domesticmarket, and where the weighted average sales price was equal toor higher than the weighted average production cost, normal2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 10
▼B
value, by product model, was calculated as the weighted average
of all domestic sales prices of the type in question. For thoseproduct models where at least 10 %, but no more than 80 %,
by volume, was sold at a profit on the domestic market, normal
value, by product model, was calculated as the weighted averageof the profitable domestic sales prices only, of the model inquestion.
(56)Given that domestic sales of the like product by the Turkishproducers during the first half of the IP were found to be madein sufficient quantities and in the ordinary course of trade,normal value was based on the actual prices paid or payable for
the corresponding product model, by independent customers in
Turkey during the second half of the review IP.
(c)Export price
(57)The investigation showed that the exports of Chinese origin
CTVs by the Turkish company concerned, via its related expor-
ters in Turkey, were made bothto unrelated and to related
customers in the Community.
(58)Therefore, for those sales made to unrelated customers in theCommunity, the export price was established in accordance
with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of export
prices actually paid or payable.
(59)For sales made via related importers, the export price was
constructed on the basis of resale prices to independent custo-
mers. Adjustments were made for all costs incurred betweenimportation and resale by that importer, including selling,general and administrative expenses (SG&A), and for the profitmargin found in the investigation to have been attained by unre-lated importers of the product concerned, in accordance with
Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation.
(d)Comparison
(60)For the purposes of a fair comparison between the normal value
and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustmentswas made for differences which were claimed and demonstrated
to affect price comparability in accordance withArticle 2(10) of
the basic Regulation. On this basis, adjustments were madewhere appropriate with regard to import taxes and indirect taxes,rebates, transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillarycosts, after sales costs, commissions and credit.
(61)A number of adjustments for differences in other factors, such asbad debt costs, finance costs due to differences in inventorylevels, finance costs of import taxes and of indirect taxes, brandvalue allowance, advertising costs and SG&A of related
domestic distributors were claimed. However, these claims were
not accepted since it was not demonstrated that they affectedprice comparability.
(62)VAT related adjustments suchas VAT interest on importsdestined for domestic production and VAT financing of domesticsales, were claimed. In this respect, companies have the obliga-tion to collect the tax on behalf of the State and to reimburse toit the amount due. VAT transactions do not affect the financialresults (profits or losses) of companies. Instead, the VAT trans-
actions affect either the current assets or the current liabilities as
set out in their accounts. Moreover, and in relation to any finan-cial costs associated to VAT transactions, due to their rollingnature, there is a constant flow of VAT transactions going bothways (payable and receivable) that in any given period offset
each other. Thus, any substantial financial cost related to VAT
transactions would under normal circumstances occur only atthe early stages of an enterprise's life where its procurementneeds are much higher than its sales activity. Claims related tofinance costs for VAT, if any, should be considered as normaloperational overheads and no adjustments should be made2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 11
▼B
concerning suchcosts since th ey do not affect price compar-
ability.
(63)Notional quantity discounts with the argument that, had domesticcustomers purchased the same quantities as the customers in theexport market, then all the domestic customers would qualify forthe maximum rebate given in the domestic market, were
claimed. This claim could not be accepted since in accordance
withArticle 2(10)(c) of th e basic Regulation quantity discountscan be considered for an adjustment only if they are actuallygiven for differences in quantities and not on the basis ofnotional assumptions.
(64)A level of trade adjustment for original equipment manufacturer(OEM) sales was also claimed. However, it was found thatprices on the domestic market for the same models of brandedand OEM CTVs did not show a different pattern. Therefore,
this claim could not be accepted since any such difference did
not affect price comparability.
(65)The comparison between normal value and export price was
made on an ex-works basis.
(e)Dumping margin for the Turkish company exporting CTVs of
Chinese origin
(66)According to Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the monthlyweighted average normal value by product model was compared
with the monthly weighted average export price by product
model. The dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of thecif price at Community frontier level duty unpaid for VestelElektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret AS, Turkey is 69,2 %.
(f)Dumping margin for Chinese producers
(67)For the non-cooperating Chinese exporting producers and for
Chinese producers without exports during the review IP the levelof dumping was determined on the basis of the facts available.
(68)In this respect, the normal value was established on the basis ofthe overall average domestic sales prices for all models of CTVsof the three cooperating Turkish producers during the first halfof the IP. With regard to the export price, it was determined onthe basis of facts available by reference to Eurostat, i.e. the
weighted average cif value, adjusted for ocean freight and insur-
ance, of imports from China for all models of CTVs during thesecond half of the review IP. The comparison of this normalvalue and export price showed that exports from China to theCommunity were dumped to a significant extent during thatperiod. In fact, the dumping margin established was in excess
of the residual dumping margin which was established during
the previous investigation, i.e. 44,6 %.
(69)Moreover, Poetic gave, in its request for review, prima facie
evidence that significant dumping takes place in respect of
imports originating in China. In fact, the dumping marginsalleged in the review request were also in excess of the residualdumping margin established in the previous investigation.
(70)In these circumstances, there was no reason to believe that thedumping margin for China would be less than the residualdumping margin established during the previous investigation.Pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation, therefore, adumping margin of 44,6 % has been attributed to all producers
in China.
2.Korea
(71)Given that no exporting producer cooperated in the investigation,
the Commission examined the facts available to it for deter-mining the level of dumping for Korea.2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 12
▼B
(72)In this respect, the normal value was established on the basis of
the information provided by the Korean producers for the
sampling exercise, i.e. the weighted average value of the productconcerned sold in the domestic market during the review IP.With regard to the export price, it was determined on the basisof facts available by reference to Eurostat, i.e. the weightedaverage cif value, adjusted for ocean freight and insurance, of
imports from Korea for all models of CTVs during the review
IP. The comparison of this normal value and export priceshowed that exports from Korea to the Community were dumpedto a significant level during the review IP. In particular, thedumping margin established was in excess of the residual
dumping margin which was established during the previous
investigation, i.e. 21,2 %.
(73)Moreover, Poetic gave, in its request for review, prima facie
evidence that significant dumping takes place in respect ofimports originating in Korea. In fact, the dumping marginsalleged in the review request were also in excess of the residual
dumping margin established in the previous investigation.
(74)In these circumstances, there is no reason to believe that the
dumping margin for all the non-cooperating companies wouldbe less than the residual dumping margin established during theprevious investigation. Pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regu-lation, a dumping margin of 21,2 % was attributed to all non-
cooperating producers in Korea.
(75)For the same reasons, the same dumping margin of 21,2 % was
attributed to Thomson Television Thailand, Thailand and BekoElektronik AS, Turkey, which were found to export CTVs ofKorean origin during the IP. A comparison of the overallaverage export price of these CTVs with an overall normal value
established on the basis of information concerning domestic
prices of similar CTVs types sold in Korea, as derived from thereview request, confirmed that significant dumping, in line withthe abovementioned margins, was taking place.
3.Malaysia
(76)Given that no exporting producer cooperated in the investigation,
the Commission examined the facts available to it for deter-mining the level of dumping for Malaysia.
(77)In this respect, and given that no Malaysian exporting producerprovided information for the sampling exercise, it was consid-ered appropriate to use information regarding Korea to establish
normal value for Malaysia. In this respect, the normal value was
established on the basis of the information provided by theKorean producers for the sampling exercise, i.e. the weightedaverage value of the product concerned sold in the Koreanmarket during the review IP. Regarding the export price, it was
determined on the basis of facts available by reference to Euro-
stat, i.e. the weighted average cif value, adjusted for oceanfreight and insurance, of imports from Malaysia for all modelsof CTVs during the review IP. The comparison of this normalvalue and export price showed that exports from Malaysia tothe Community were dumped to a significant level during the
review IP. In fact, the dumping margin established was in excess
of the residual dumping margin which was established during theprevious investigation, i.e. 25,1 %.
(78)In these circumstances, there is no reason to believe that thedumping margin for all the non-cooperating companies wouldbe less than the residual dumping margin established during the
previous investigation. Pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regu-
lation, a dumping margin of 25,1 % was therefore attributed toall non-cooperating producers in Malaysia.
(79)For the same reasons, the same dumping margin of 25,1 % wasattributed to Thomson Television Thailand, Thailand and BekoElektronik AS, Turkey, which were found to export CTVs of2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 13
▼B
Malaysian origin during the IP. A comparison of the overall
average export price of these CTVs with an overall normal valueestablished on the basis of information concerning domestic
prices of similar CTVs types sold in Malaysia, as derived from
the review request, confirmed that significant dumping, in linewithth e abovementioned margins, was taking place.
4.Singapore
(80)Given that no exporting producer cooperated in the investigation,
the Commission examined the facts available for determining the
level of dumping for Singapore. It is noted that the volume of
exports to the Community as derived from Eurostat statisticswas very low.
(81)The normal value and the export price was established on thebasis of the information concerning domestic sales and exportsales to the Community provided by one Singaporean producerfor the sampling exercise. The comparison of an overall averagenormal value withan overall average export price th us estab-
lished showed significant dumping.
(82)In these circumstances, there is no reason to believe that the
dumping margin for all the non-cooperating companies wouldbe less than the residual dumping margin established during theprevious investigation. Pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regu-lation, therefore, a dumping margin of 24,6 % was attributed toall non-cooperating producers in Singapore.
5.Thailand
(83)Only one company in Thailand cooperated in the proceeding, i.e.
Thomson Television Thailand. However, the exports of thiscompany were found not to be of Thai origin and are dealt withas far as the level of dumping is concerned in recitals 71 to 75and 76 to 79. According to the information available, i.e. Euro-stat, the non-cooperating producers did not export CTVs of Thai
origin to the Community during the review IP. Therefore, there
was no data available in order to determine a new level ofdumping for Thailand.
E.CONTINUATIONORRECURRENCEOFDUMPING
(84)In accordance withArticle 11(2) of th e basic Regulation, it was
examined whether the expiry of the measures in force would be
likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping.
(85)In order to determine whether there was a likelihood of conti-nuation of dumping, the Commission investigated the existence
of current dumping on exports from the countries concerned tothe Community on the grounds that if dumping was taking place,then it was reasonable, in the absence of any information to thecontrary, to consider that it would be likely to continue in thefuture.
(86)As to the examination of the likely recurrence of dumping, i.e.
the likelihood of increased exports at dumped prices should the
current measures be repealed, which is necessary when thevolumes from the countries concerned are relatively small, theCommission investigated whether future dumping was likelyand whether any such dumping would take place in significantquantities.
1.People'sRepublicofChina
(87)As previously mentioned, no Chinese cooperating company has
exported CTVs to the Community during the review IP.However, according to the information available from Eurostat,CTVs were exported from this country during the review IP. Inaccordance withth e information available, as set out in recital70, it was confirmed that the level of dumping for the CTVs2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 14
▼B
originating in and exported from this country continued to be
significant.
(88)In addition, the investigation showed that a significant volume ofCTVs exported to the Community from Turkey originated in theChina. It was found that these CTVs were exported from Turkeyat significantly dumped prices.
(89)Moreover, the comparison of normal value established in the
analogue country, Turkey, with the prices of Chinese exports to
third countries showed that these exports were made at consider-ably dumped prices.
(90)According to information submitted by the cooperating Chinesecompanies, the production capacity for CTVs in the China has
increased since 1998, whilst domestic consumption was not
able to absorb production. According to this information, thereare significant spare production capacities of CTVs for exportin the China as almost half of the existing capacity, representingaround 50 % of the Community market, is unused. It is thereforeconsidered most likely that, should measures be repealed, the
dumped exports of Chinese CTVs to the Community will
increase significantly.
(91)Therefore, there is no reason to believe that dumping will notcontinue if the measures in force were repealed.
2.Korea
(92)As previously mentioned, no producers in Korea cooperated in
the investigation. Moreover, according to data derived fromEurostat, CTVs were exported from that country in relatively
large quantities during the review IP. In accordance with the
information available as set out in recitals 74 and 75, theCommission confirmed that the level of dumping for the CTVsexported from that country continued to be significant.
(93)Furthermore, in accordance with the information obtained by the
cooperating producers in Turkey (Beko Elektronik AS) and
Thailand (Thomson Television Thailand), the investigationshowed that CTVs sales originating in Korea and exported fromthese countries were made at dumped prices.
(94)According to the information available, i.e. the review request,
large capacities for CTVs production exist in Korea and the
domestic consumption absorbs less than 15 % of the productionwhich leaves significant scope for increased exports. Moreover,while this capacity remained stable between 1996 and 1999, thedomestic consumption in the same period decreased by 23 %.Although there are expectations that the market demand in
Korea will grow moderately, there remain significant free
production capacities of CTVs in Korea. As the origin of theCPTs is often decisive in determining the origin of the CTVs,the production capacities of CPTs in Korea were examined andwere also found to be significant.
(95)In conclusion, the facts available indicate the existence of signif-icant capacities which could be directed to the Communityshould the current measures be repealed. In these circumstances,there is no reason to believe that the repeal of measures wouldnot lead to continuation of dumping in significant quantities
from Korea.
3.Malaysia
(96)As previously mentioned, no producer in Malaysia cooperated in
the investigation. Moreover, Eurostat shows that certain quanti-
ties of CTVs were exported from that country during thereview IP. In accordance withth e information available, as setout in recitals 76 to 79, the Commission confirmed that the levelof dumping for the CTVs exported from this country continuedto be significant.2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 15
▼B
(97)Furthermore, in accordance with the information obtained by the
cooperating producers in Turkey (Beko Elektronik AS) and
Thailand (Thomson Television Thailand), the investigationshowed that significant CTVs sales originating in Malaysia andexported from these countries were made at dumped prices.
(98)According to the information available, in particular the reviewrequest, large capacities for CTVs production exist in Malaysia.As the origin of the CPTs is often decisive in determining theorigin of the CTVs, the production capacities of CPTs inMalaysia were examined and were also found to be significant.
(99)In conclusion, there is no reason to believe that the repeal ofmeasures would not lead to continuation of dumping in signifi-cant quantities from Malaysia.
4.Singapore
(100)Given the very low volume of dumped exports during the review
IP, it was considered appropriate to examine the likelihood of
recurrence of dumping.
(101)Since the imposition of anti-dumping measures in 1995, importsof CTVs originating in Singapore decreased from around 36000
sets to around 2 000 sets, holding a share of the Community
market which decreased from 0,1 % to close to 0 %. Thisdecrease in the volume of imports should be seen in the light ofthe fact that two exporting producers had an anti-dumping dutyof 0 %. Furthermore, exports of Singaporean CTVs to other
main CTV markets, suchas th e United States of America were
also at very low levels (35 000 sets in 1999). It is thereforereasonable to conclude that the decrease in the volume ofexports from Singapore is not due to the imposition of anti-dumping measures on this country, but rather to the focus ofdomestic production on local markets.
(102)Information provided by the applicant in the request for reviewshows that production in Singapore substantially decreased froman estimated 4,5 million sets in 1995 to an estimated 1,3 millionsets in 1999. Capacity was also reduced due to the discontinua-
tion of production by several Singaporean producers.
(103)In view of the above, it is not expected that the repeal of the
anti-dumping measures in force would lead to a recurrence of
dumping in significant quantities from Singapore.
5.Thailand
(104)Although several CTVs producers exist in Thailand, only one
which had exported CTVs to the Community during the reviewIP cooperated in the investigation. However, as mentionedabove, the CTVs exported to the Community by this producer
were found to be dumped but being of Korean and Malaysian
origin. According to the information available, i.e. the reviewrequest, large capacities for CTVs production exist in Thailandand the domestic consumption absorbs less than 16 % of theproduction which leaves significant scope for increased exports.Moreover, while this capacity increased by 17 % between 1996
and 2000, domestic consumption in the same period decreased
by 30 % leaving, thus, significant free production capacities ofCTVs in Thailand.
(105)As the origin of the CPTs is often decisive in determining theorigin of the CTVs, the production capacities of CPTs in Thai-land were examined and were also found to be significant.
(106)There are, therefore, sound reasons to believe that the repeal of
measures would lead to a recurrence of dumping in significant
quantities from Thailand. Regarding the level of dumping, thereare no reasons to believe that it would be less than the residualmargin established for the non-cooperating exporting producers(i.e. 33,6 %) and 14,7 % for Thomson Television Thailand asfound in the context of the previous anti-dumping investigation.2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 16
▼B
F.COMMUNITYINDUSTRY
1.Communityproduction
(107)In the Community CTVs are manufactured by the following
operators:
— five producers who lodged and/or supported the complaint
and cooperated during the investigation: Industrie Formenti
(IT), Grundig (D), Philips Electronic Consumers (NL),Seleco Formenti (IT) and Tecnimagen (E),
— one producer who lodged the complaint but finally did not
cooperate: AR Systems (E). The company was informed of
its exclusion from the Community industry and raised no
objections,
— six producers, which were not complainants, submitted some
basic information, while not fully replying to the question-naire, did not oppose the proceeding: Great Wall (F),Matsushita Panasonic (UK) Mivar (I), Sanyo (E), Semitech
Turku (FI), and Thomson Multi Media (F). The latter
opposed the continuation of the anti-dumping measures,
— other producers which did not cooperate but did not oppose
to the procedure.
(108)It was assessed whether the abovementioned companies could beconsidered as constituting the Community production, within the
meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.
(109)One non complainant Community producer was found to berelated to one exporter concerned and to be importing itself
CTVs originating in two of the countries concerned. In accor-dance withArticle 4 of th e basic Regulation it was examinedwhether this producer was were merely supplementing theirCommunity production withan additional activity based on
imports or it was rather an importer with relatively limited addi-
tional production in the Community.
(110)It was found that the core of the activities of this company (i.e.production sites, headquarters and R&D) lies within the Commu-nity and therefore this company should not be excluded from thedefinition of the Community production. As to other Communityproducers which neither participated in the investigation nor
provided any information, there were no indications to conclude
that any of these producers should not belong to the Communityproduction.
(111)One Turkishexporter claimed th at one complainant Communityproducer should be excluded from the Community production,considering that it had moved the bulk of its CTV productionoutside the Community, i.e. to its factories in Poland and
Hungary. It should firstly be noted that the basic Regulation
merely allows for the exclusion of Community producers whichare related to the exporters concerned or are themselves impor-ters of the allegedly dumped product. Nonetheless, this is not thecase here, since the complainant Community producer in ques-tion produces the product concerned in the Community and still
has the core of its activities in the Community (i.e. consumer
electronics, production sites, headquarters and R&D) and shouldtherefore not be excluded from the definition of the Communityproduction.
(112)It is therefore considered that all the abovementioned operatorsare Community producers and thus constitute the Communityproduction within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regu-
lation.
2.DefinitionoftheCommunityindustry
(113)The five cooperating Community producers, i.e. Industrie
Formenti, Grundig, Philips Consumer Electronics, SelecoFormenti and Technimagen, fulfil the requirements of Article5(4) of the basic Regulation, since they account for 30 % of the2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 17
▼B
total Community production of CTVs. They are therefore
deemed to constitute the Community industry within themeaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation and will be
referred to as the ‘Community industry’.
G.ANALYSISOFTHESITUATIONOFTHECOMMUNITYCTV
MARKET
1.Preliminary remark
(114)It should be noted that Seleco Formenti was declared bankrupt in
April 1997 and was purchased by Industrie Formenti in March1998. The new entity re-started CTV production in October1998. Thus, for reason of comparability of the trends pertainingto the situation of the Community industry, the data provided by
Seleco Formenti has been excluded from the total of the
Community industry.
(115)As already mentioned in recital 18 the analysis of trends relevantfor the assessment of injury covered the period 1995 to 30 June
2000 (period considered). In this respect it is worth noting that
the review IP corresponds to the year 1999.
2.ApparentCommunityconsumption
(116)Apparent consumption was based on the combined volume of
sales in the Community market by the Community industry andby other cooperating Community producers as reported in theirquestionnaires replies, the volume of sales provided by certain
other Community producers, the estimated volume of sales by
other non-cooperating Community producers as reported in therequest for a review and the information on the volume of totalimports as reported by Eurostat, cross-checked where possible byreference to the information provided by cooperating exporters.
(117)Consumption of CTVs is influenced by major sporting eventsuch as world and European football championships andOlympic games, when sales of CTVs generally increase.
(118)Over the period considered consumption of CTVs in the
Community increased by 31 % from 24,7 million in 1995 to
24,5 million in 1996, to 27,7 million in 1997, to 31 million in1998, to 30,7 million in 1999 and to 32,4 million during the IP.
3.Importsfromthecountriesconcerned
(119)In view of the above findings concerning origin, in particular the
lack of imports of CTVs originating in Thailand, the assessmentof imports from the countries concerned will be limited toimports originating in China, Korea, Malaysia and Singapore.
(a)Volume of the imports concerned and market share
(120)The volume of imports originating in the countries concerned
during the IP also includes those CTVs which were found tooriginate in a country concerned different from that of exporta-tion as explained above. In order to have comparable trends, inthe case of imports of CTVs originating in the countriesconcerned but exported from other countries, the ratio of CTVs
originating in the countries concerned found for the IPs was
applied for the previous years.
(121)Total imports concerned increased by 73 %, going from 1,4million in 1995, to 1,2 million in 1996, to 1,3 million in 1997,
to 1,8 million in 1998, to 2 million in 1999 and to 2,5 million in
the IP.
(122)The share of the Community market of the imports concernedevolved from 5,6 % in 1995 to 4,8 % in 1996, 4,6 % in 1997,5,7 % in 1998, 6,6 % in 1999 and 7,5 % during the IP.2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 18
▼B
(b)Prices of the dumped imports
(i) Evolution of prices
(123)According to data supplied by Eurostat and cooperating expor-
ters, the weighted average unit import prices (duties unpaid) inthe IP amounted to EUR 101 in the case of imports originatingin the China, EUR 123 in the case of imports originating in the
China but exported from Turkey, EUR 180 in the case of
imports originating in Korea, EUR 115 for imports originatingin Malaysia, EUR 82 for imports originating in Malaysia andexported from Thailand and EUR 170 for imports originating inSingapore.
(124)These prices are the result of the mix of all models and screensizes. If only the small screen size segment is considered (14inches), which represents around 50 % of all imports into the
Community; the weighted average unit import prices in the IP
amounted to EUR 90 for China, EUR 86 for imports originatingin China and exported from Turkey, EUR 151 for Korea, EUR 93for Malaysia, EUR 82 for imports originating in Malaysia andexported from Thailand and EUR 147 for Singapore.
(ii) Price undercutting
(125)In order to examine the price behaviour of Chinese imports in
the Community market, the prices of the imports concernedwere compared to those of the sales made by the Community
industry in the Community market, net of all rebates and
discounts, at the same level of trade. In the case of CTVsexported from Turkey and originating in the China, Korea andMalaysia, this examination was done on the basis of datapertaining to a period of six months, since as mentioned abovethe investigation periods of both proceedings only overlapped
from 1 July 1999 to 31 December 1999. The import prices
were at the cif Community frontier level and were duly adjustedfor customs and anti-dumping duties paid and post-importationcosts. The prices of the Community industry were those to thefirst unrelated customer at an ex-works level.
(126)In view of the large number of models, the CTVs sold in theCommunity market were categorised according to those featuresconsidered to have the greatest impact on the cost of CTVs,
namely screen size, screen format, screen type, picture
frequency, sound, teletext and TV system. For those countrieswhere no cooperation was obtained from the exporting produ-cers, price comparisons were carried out on the basis of theinformation available, i.e. data obtained from Eurostat, taking
into account screen sizes.
(127)The differences in prices, when expressed as a percentage of the
Community industry's prices showed margins of price undercut-
ting ranging between 1,9 % and 34,3 % for all countries
concerned with the exception of Singapore, for which no priceundercutting was found.
4.EconomicsituationoftheCommunityindustry
(a)Preliminary remark
(128)The situation of the Community industry should be seen in the
light of the fact that in 1997 the largest Community producerclosed some production facilities of CTVs and relocated themto Poland, which is in itself a consequence of a critical situationof the Community industry on the Community market.
(b)Production, capacity and utilisation
(129)The production of the Community industry evolved from 6,5
million in 1995, to 6,6 million in 1996, 6 million in 1997, 6,12002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 19
▼B
million in 1998, 5,9 million in 1999 and 6 million during the IP
i.e. an overall decrease of seven percentage points.
(130)The Community industry production capacity evolved from 7,5
million in 1995 to 7,7 million in 1996, to 7,3 million in 1997,
to 7 million in 1998, to 7,1 million in 1999 and during the IP,withan overall decrease of four percentage points during th ewhole period.
(131)The Community industry's capacity utilisation remained stable,evolving from 87 % in 1995 to 85 % in 1996, 82 % in 1997,
86 % in 1998, 83 % in 1999 and to 85 % in the IP.
(c)Stocks
(132)The level of stocks by the Community industry went from
around 500 000 in 1995, to around 400 000 in 1996 and 1997,to around 500000 in 1998 and to around 400000 in 1999.
With the exception of 1998, the volume of stocks remained rela-
tively stable over the period considered, both as a percentage ofproduction volume (7 %) as well as a percentage of sales volume(8 %).
(d)Sales volume and market share
(133)The sales volume of the Community industry to unrelated custo-
mers in the Community evolved from 5,9 million in 1995 and1996, to 5,4 million in 1997 and 1998, to 5,3 million in 1999and 5,5 million during the IP.
(134)Sales decreased by 7 % between 1995 and the IP. Theyremained stable between 1995 and 1996 and decreased by 8 %
between 1996 and 1997. Between 1997 and the IP, sales
increased by 3 %.
(135)The Community industry's share of the Community market wentfrom 24 % in 1995 to 17 % during the IP, which corresponds toa decrease of seven percentage points.
(e)Growth
(136)While Community consumption increased by around 30 % over
the period considered, the sales volume of the Communityindustry decreased by around 7 % and the volume of importsconcerned increased by 73 %. Despite the growth in consump-
tion, the Community industry did not increase its share of the
Community market, which went from 24 % in 1995 to 17 % inthe IP. Thus, the Community industry could not fully benefitfrom the growth of the market.
(f)Sales prices and factors affecting Community prices
(137)CTVs are progressively becoming a mature product, where
prices are eroded regularly. The erosion in prices is more evidentin the small screen sizes, with a limited number of features andgenerally used as second or third set in households.
(138)The main cost element for CTVs is the price of the CPT, oftenrepresenting between 40 % and 60 % of the price of CTVs. In
this respect, certain Community producers indicated the exis-
tence of a shortage of CPTs in the Community market duringthe period considered, especially in 1999 and the IP. Moreover,several Community producers also indicated that given the factthat a part of CPTs incorporated in CTVs manufactured in theCommunity is purchased in US dollars, the average cost of
CPTs increased in 1999 and during the IP for Community produ-
cers due to the development of exchange rates.
(139)Weighted average unit prices of the Community industry tounrelated customers went from EUR 300 in 1995 to EUR 302in 1996, EUR 306 in 1997, EUR 320 in 1998, EUR 309 in1999 and EUR 319 during the IP. The average sales prices do2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 20
▼B
not reveal a price erosion, because it is the result of the product
mix of types sold.
(140)However, the price erosion is evident if the average sales pricesper screen sizes are examined. For instance the weighted averagesales price of 14-inchCTVs by th e Community industry
decreased from EUR 105 in 1999 to EUR 102 during the IP.
Those of 21-inch CTVs decreased from EUR 172 to EUR 168whereas those of 28-inch CTVs decreased from EUR 380 toEUR 350.
(141)In conclusion, the increase in the weighted average sales pricesby the Community industry is the result of a change in theproduct mix, towards those models with a higher value added.
(g)Employment
(142)Employment of the Community decreased by 20 % during the
period examined, evolving from 6500 employees in 1995, to6 000 employees in 1996, to 5 600 employees in 1997, to 5 000employees in 1998, to 5100 in 1999 and to 5 200 employeesduring the IP.
(h)Productivity
(143)Productivity of the Community industry increased from 1 000
units per employee in 1995 to 1 100 in 1996 and 1997, 1 200 in1998 and 1 150 in 1999 and in the IP, with an overall growth of
16 %.
(i)Wages
(144)Wages of the Community industry per employee remained stable
in 1995 and 1996, increased by 2 % in 1997, by 1 % in 1998
and by a further 7 % in 1999.
(j)Investments
(145)Investments by the Community industry related to CTVs
increased from EUR 48 million in 1995, to EUR 52 million
during the IP, i.e. an increase of 10 %. Investments represented
around 2 % of the turnover. With the exception of 1996 and1997, the level of investments by the Community industryremained relatively stable during the period considered. Invest-ments made by the Community industry in the IP consistedmostly in the setting up of automatic storage facilities.
(k)Profitability
(146)The return on net sales made by the Community industry in the
Community market, before taxes, evolved from –2,7 % in 1995to +1,3 % during the IP. Following restructuring efforts, the
break-even was reached in 1996. The profitability of the
Community industry improved in 1997, coinciding withfurth errestructuring through the relocation of part of the production ofthe main Community producer to Poland. In 1998 the profit-ability remained at the same level, due to an increase in the
sales prices, coinciding withimportant sporting events suchas
the world football championship. Between 1998 and 1999 profit-ability deteriorated, due to a decrease in sales prices. Between1999 and the IP profitability improved, due to an increase insales prices resulting from a change in the product mix, althoughit remained at a low level.
(l)Cash flow, return on investments and ability to raise capital
(147)Cash flow of the Community industry calculated as the profit
before taxes including non-cashitems, after a recovery in 1997,decreased progressively until the IP.2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 21
▼B
(148)Concerning the return on investments, it was around 15 % in
1995, negative in 1996, clearly positive in 1997 and 1998,
slightly positive in 1999 and during the IP.
(149)None of the companies constituting the Community industry
indicated any particular difficulties to raise capital.
(m)Magnitude of the dumping margin and recovery from past
dumping
(150)As concerns the impact on the Community industry of the
magnitude of the actual dumping margin, given the volume and
the prices of the imports from the countries concerned, this
impact cannot be considered to be negligible. The situation ofthe Community industry improved in the period considered.However, it did not fully recover from past dumping andcontinues to be weak.
5.Conclusion
(151)After the imposition of measures in 1995, the situation of the
Community industry improved, and by 1997, the year in whichsignificant restructuring took place, its profitability reached asatisfactory level.
(152)However, after 1998, the situation of the Community industrydeteriorated, in particular in terms of profitability whichdecreased to 1,3 % in the IP. The poor profitability in 1999
was due to a decrease in the sales prices, which were insufficient
to cover the increasing costs of the Community industry. In theIP, despite an increase in the prices, costs increased aboveprices, mostly due to an increase in the prices of CPT, the maininput in the production of CTVs, and to the pressure exerted on
prices by imports, thus preventing the profitability of the
Community industry from improving to the levels in 1997 and1998.
(153)Furthermore, despite an increase in Community consumption(31 % over the period considered), the Community industry didnot benefit from this growth of the market and lost market share,which dropped from 24 % in 1995 to 17 % in the IP.
(154)In view of the above it is concluded that the situation of theCommunity industry improved as from 1995 but continues tobe weak.
6.Impactoftheimportsconcerned
(155)The investigation has shown that, despite the existence of anti-
dumping measures; imports from the countries concerned haveincreased by 73 % over the period considered, whereasconsumption only increased by 31 %. The biggest increase tookplace between 1997 and 1998, when imports rose by 42 %, coin-
ciding with the sharpest increase in consumption (+12 %). The
share of the Community market held by the imports concernedincreased from 5,7 % in 1995 to 7,5 % in the IP.
(156)Export performance has varied between the countries concerned.Imports originating in Singapore have decreased over the periodconsidered, holding a share of the Community market close to0 % in the IP. Imports originating in China increased substan-tially, the increase being attributable to the imports of CTVsoriginating in China exported from Turkey. The Chinese market
share rose from 1,2 % in 1995 to 3,9 % during the IP. Imports
originating in Korea increased substantially between 1998 and1999 and their market share rose from 0,4 % in 1995 to 2 %during the IP. Imports originating in Malaysia decreased. Theirmarket share decreased from 3,9 % to 1,6 %.
(157)Regarding the prices of the imports concerned, with the excep-tion of those originating in Singapore, they undercut those ofthe Community industry during the IP. Furthermore, the importsconcerned exerted a pressure on the prices of the Community2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 22
▼B
industry which prevented them from reflecting the increased
costs of the Community industry especially in 1999 and in theIP. Thus, the price pressure exerted by the countries concerned
contributed to the deterioration of the profitability of the
Community industry.
7.Importvolumesandpricesfromotherthirdcountries
(158)Imports from other third countries have been established on the
basis of Eurostat data and also include CTVs exported fromTurkey but originating in any of these third countries, accordingto the findings on origin for the IP. It should be noted that Euro-
stat figures, which were the only information available, may not
reflect the actual origin of CTVs imported into the Communityfrom other third countries.
(159)The volume of CTV imports from other third countries increasedby more than 800 % over the period considered, from 1 millionunits in 1995 to 8,9 million in the IP. The main exports origi-nated in Poland (from 401000 in 1995 to 5,3 million duringthe IP), Hungary (from 115000 to 1,6 million), Lithuania (from
114000 to 920000) and the Czech Republic (from 2 000 to
660000).
(160)With regard to their share of the Community market, it rosefrom 4,2 % in 1995 to 27,3 % in the IP, of which Poland hold16,4 %, Hungary 4,8 %, Lithuania 2,8 %, Czech Republic 2 %and other exporters 1,3 %.
(161)With regard to the prices of these imports, those originating inPoland and Lithuania are below those of the Communityindustry and along the lines of those of some of the countriesconcerned. It cannot therefore be excluded that these imports
have also contributed to the stagnation of the sales and market
share by the Community industry and to the price depressionand decreasing profitability in the IP.
(162)In conclusion, imports from other third countries increasedsignificantly during the period considered, well above theincrease in apparent consumption and above the increase in thevolume of imports from the countries concerned.
H.LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF
INJURY
1.Analysis of the situation of the exporting producers from
thecountriesconcerned
(a)China
(163)In the examination of the likelihood of continuation or recur-
rence of injury account was taken of CTVs originating in Chinawhether exported from China or from other countries, such as
Turkey.
(i) Likely export volume
(164)Imports into the Community of Chinese originating CTVs
increased by 413 % over the period considered. Exports from
China decreased between 1995 and 1996 and remained at aroundthe same level between 1996 and the IP. Exports from Turkeyincreased continuously from around 190000 sets in 1995 toaround 1,2 million sets in the IP. Over 95 % of the imports
originating in China in the IP corresponded to small screen
CTVs (14 inches).
(165)Information provided by the applicant in the request for reviewshows that substantial production capacity exists in China, foraround 40 million sets. Furthermore, information was providedshowing that production was around 31 million sets anddomestic consumption around 23 million sets, leaving substantialamounts of CTVs available for export.2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 23
▼B
(166)The Chinese exporting producers have in turn argued that while
production and capacity currently exceed demand, the Chinese
domestic demand for CTVs is likely to increase in the nearfuture, leaving no available production capacity for export.However, no evidence was provided in support of this claim.
(167)The investigation showed that Chinese domestic consumptionhas continuously increased, rising from an estimated 17 millionsets in 1996 to an estimated 23 million sets in 2000. However,production also increased during the same period, at a level
exceeding domestic consumption by between 7 and 10 million
sets.
(168)It was also found that exports of Chinese CTVS to the USA asreported in the Eurostat statistics increased substantially fromaround 220000 sets in 1996 to around 900000 sets in 2000, atprices which were substantially below those of the Chineseexports to the Community. Exports of Chinese CTVs to Japanincreased from around 1,3 million sets in 1996 to around 2,3
million sets in 2000. Information provided by the applicant in
the request for review indicated that these were exports ofCTVs produced by subsidiaries of Japanese producers in Chinaand sold in Japan through their own distribution network.
(169)In view of the above it is concluded that despite an increase indomestic consumption in China, substantial excess productionand capacity exist in China for export. Based on the above, it islikely that the volume of exports of Chinese CTVs to the
Community would increase should anti-dumping measures be
repealed.
(ii) Likely export prices
(170)A comparison of the prices of Chinese CTVs as reported by
Eurostat and by the cooperating Turkish exporting producerwith those of the Community industry in the IP shows that theprices of the CTVs originating in China substantially undercutthose of the Community industry, between 18,9 % and 34,3 %.
Information provided by interested parties shows that the bulk of
Chinese exports to the Community is in small screen sizes (14inches) with generally less features and where the scope forprice differentials between models is more reduced. Thus, it isconsidered that the calculation of price undercutting on this basis
adequately reflects the price differential between Chinese and
Community CTVs.
(171)The weighted average Chinese exports prices to the United
States of America, without distinction of screen sizes, converted
to a constructed cif Community border price were also signifi-cantly lower than the Community industry's prices.
(172)From the above it can be concluded that prices of exports fromChina to the Community market are likely to undercut the pricesof the Community industry should measures be allowed to lapse.Thus, it can be concluded that there is a likelihood of recurrence
of injury.
(b)Korea
(173)In 1998, the CTV Regulation was amended as regards imports
originating inter alia in Korea. The dumping margin found for
two Korean exporting producers, LG Electronics and SamsungElectronics, was de minimus and thus no anti-dumping duties
were imposed on these two exporting producers.
(174)In the examination of the likelihood of continuation or recur-rence of injury account was taken of Korean originating CTVsexported from Korea and also from other countries concerned,suchas Th ailand and Turkey.2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 24
▼B
(i) Likely export volume
(175)Exports of CTVs originating in Korea decreased from around
98000 sets in 1995 to around 80000 in 1997. In 1998 thevolume of imports increased to around 200000 sets. Importscontinued to increase to around 500 000 sets in 1999 and toaround 650000 sets in the IP. The biggest increase in the
volume of imports took place in medium/large screen sizes. The
share of the Community market held by Korean imports in theIP amounted to 2 %.
(176)Imports of Korean CTVs into the United States of America were
subject to anti-dumping measures since 1984. However, in
November 1998 the United States of America allowed the anti-dumping measures to expire given the failure of the USAdomestic industry to reply to the notice of initiation of the expiryreview. The volume of imports of Korean CTVs into the United
States of America, on the basis of the Eurostat statistics,
increased continuously from around 150000 sets in 1996 toaround 600 000 sets in 1999 and 2000. The significant increasein the volume of exports to the United States of America in 1999coincided with the revocation of the anti-dumping duties in forcein the United States of America on imports originating in Korea.
(177)Exports of Korean CTVs to Japan, decreased from around 1million sets in 1996 to around 700000 in 1999 and furtherdecreased significantly to around 380000 in 2000.
(178)Information available to the Commission shows that significantproduction capacity exists in Korea and that domestic consump-tion absorbs less than 15 % of domestic production, leavingsubstantial scope for increased exports. There are also significant
production capacities for CPTs in Korea.
(179)From the above it can be concluded that the likelihood exists
that the volume of imports will continue to increase should
anti-dumping measures be allowed to lapse.
(ii) Likely export prices
(180)A comparison of the prices of Korean CTVs as reported by
Eurostat and by the cooperating Turkish and Thai exportingproducers with those of the Community industry in the review
IP per screen sizes shows that the prices of the CTVs originating
in Korea undercut those of the Community industry between11 % and 36 %.
(181)The weighted average Korean exports prices to the United States
in America in the IP, without distinction of screen sizes,
converted to a constructed cif Community border price werealso below those of the Community industry.
(182)From the above it can be concluded that prices of Koreanexports to the Community are likely to undercut the prices ofthe Community industry should measures be allowed to lapse.Thus, it can be concluded that there is a likelihood of recurrenceof injury.
(c)Malaysia
(183)In the examination of the likelihood of continuation or recur-
rence of injury account was taken of CTVs originating inMalaysia, whether exported from Malaysia or from other coun-tries, suchas Th ailand and Turkey.
(i) Likely export volume
(184)Exports of CTVs originating in Malaysia decreased from around
970000 sets in 1995 to around 530000 in the IP and their shareof the Community market decreased from 3,9 % in 1995 to 1,6 %in the IP. Around 90 % of these exports were made from Thai-land.2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 25
▼B
(185)The volume of imports of Malaysian CTVs into the United
States of America, on the basis of the Eurostat statistics,
increased from around 3 million sets in 1996 and 1997 to 3,6million in 1998, to 5,4 million in 1999 and to 7 million sets in2000.
(186)The volume of imports of Malaysian CTVs into Japan, increasedfrom 2,5 million sets between 1996 and 1998 to 3 million sets in1999 and then to 4 million sets in 2000.
(187)Information provided by the applicant in the request for review
shows that the Malaysian producers are fully utilising their capa-
city and that only around 5 % of domestic production is destinedfor the domestic market, the rest being destined basically forJapan, the United States of America and the Community market.
(188)It is therefore concluded that a certain increase in the volume ofMalaysian imports of CTVs could take place if the anti-dumpingmeasures were repealed.
(ii) Likely export prices
(189)A comparison of the prices of Malaysian CTVs as reported by
Eurostat and by the cooperating Turkish and Thai exportingproducers with those of the Community industry in the IP perscreen sizes shows that the prices of the CTVs originating in
Malaysia undercut those of the Community industry between
17 % and 21 %.
(190)The weighted average Malaysian export prices to the UnitedStates of America in the IP, without distinction of screen sizes,converted to a constructed cif Community border price, werebelow those of the Community industry. Given the level ofpricing practised by Malaysian exporters in the United States of
America, a major third country market, it cannot be excluded
that, should anti-dumping measures be repealed, significantquantities of CTVs of Malaysian origin could be exported tothe Community at dumped prices, causing injury to the Commu-nity industry.
(191)From the above it can be concluded that prices of Malaysianexports to the Community are likely to undercut the prices of
the Community industry should measures be allowed to lapse.
Therefore, there is a likelihood of recurrence of injury.
(d)Singapore
(192)Since no cooperation was obtained from any exporting producers
in this country, the analysis of the likelihood of continuation orrecurrence of injury was based on the information available, in
accordance withArticle 18 of th e basic Regulation.
(i) Likely export volume
(193)As already mentioned in recital 103, it is unlikely that a repeal
of the anti-dumping measures will result in an increase in thevolume of Singaporean exports to the Community. This conclu-
sion was reached in view of the fact that production capacities in
Singapore have decreased due to the discontinuation of produc-tion by several local producers, the fact that the volume ofimports did not increase during the period considered despitethe 0 % anti-dumping duty applicable to two exporting producersand the low volume of exports of Singaporean CTVs to other
third markets.
(ii) Likely export prices
(194)A comparison of the prices of the CTVs exported from Singa-
pore with those of the Community industry in the IP shows thatthe prices of the CTVs originating in Singapore were not under-cutting those of the Community industry.2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 26
▼B
(195)The average prices of the exports from Singapore to the USA,
without distinction of screen sizes were higher then those of
exports to the Community in 1997, 1998 and 2000, with theexception of 1999.
(196)From the above, it is unlikely that in the absence of anti-dumping measures suchimports would be at prices wh ichcouldcontribute to the deterioration of the situation of the Community
industry. It is therefore concluded that a recurrence of injury
caused by imports originating in Singapore is unlikely.
(e)Thailand
(197)According to the information presented in the request for a
review a number of CTV producers exists in Thailand, althoughonly one of them cooperated during the investigations. However,this exporting producer was found to have exported to theCommunity CTVs originating in countries concerned other than
Thailand. In view of the above, the examination of the likelihood
of continuation or recurrence of injurious dumping was done onthe basis of the information available.
(i) Likely export volume
(198)According to the information submitted by the applicant in the
request for a review, substantial production capacity for CTVsexists in Thailand, which increased from around 4,5 million unitsin 1996 to around 5,3 million in 2000.
(199)During the same period domestic consumption in Thailand was
found to have decreased from around 1,2 million units in 1996
to around 840000 in 2000, leaving, thus, substantial quantitiesavailable for export.
(200)On the basis of the information provided by Eurostat, the volumeof imports of Thai CTVs into Japan decreased from 1,5 million
units in 1996 to 1,3 million in 2000. By contrast, the volume of
imports of Thai CTVs into the USA increased from 1,2 millionunits in 1996 to 4,7 million in 2000. It is therefore concludedthat domestic consumption, which contracted over the periodexamined, is able to absorb only a marginal part of the totalThai production of CTVs.
(201)Furthermore, according to information available to the Commis-sion services, substantial production capacity for CPT exists inThailand, which has increased from around 6,6 million in 1997to around 7,7 million in 2000.
(202)From the above it can be concluded that an increase in the
volume of imports of CTVs originating in Thailand could take
place if the anti-dumping measures were repealed.
(ii) Likely export prices
(203)The weighted average Thai export prices to the United States of
America and to Japan in the IP, without distinction of screensizes, converted to a constructed cif Community border price,were below those of the Community industry and along the linesof those originating in Malaysia, for which it has been concludedthat a likelihood of recurrence of injurious dumping exists.
(204)Given the level of pricing practised by Thai exporters in othermajor third country markets, mainly United States of America(4,7 million sets) and Japan (1,4 million sets) in 2000, it cannotbe excluded that, should anti-dumping measures be allowed tolapse, significant quantities of Thai CTVs could be exported to
the Community at dumped prices, causing injury to the Commu-
nity industry.
(205)It is therefore concluded that there is a likelihood of recurrenceof injurious dumping resulting from imports of CTVs originatingin Thailand should the current anti-dumping measures berepealed.2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 27
▼B
2.Conclusion on the likelihood of recurrence of injury for
theCommunityindustry
(206)On the basis of the above it is likely that the repeal of the anti-dumping measures on imports of CTVs originating in China,
Korea, Malaysia and Thailand would result in an increase in the
volume of imports originating in these countries into theCommunity, thus eroding the share of the Community marketheld by the Community industry.
(207)Given the findings regarding the price behaviour of theseimports into the Community and, where available, into otherthird countries, it is likely that an increase in volume of imports
at low prices will depress the prices of the Community industry.
This would in turn lead to a deterioration of the financial situa-tion of the Community industry. Therefore, it is concluded thatthere is a likelihood of recurrence of injury caused by dumpedimports originating in the countries concerned.
(208)On the other hand, given the findings regarding imports of CTVsoriginating in Singapore, it is unlikely that these imports will
contribute to the deterioration of the situation of the Community
industry. Consequently, it is not considered that there is a like-lihood of recurrence of injury should the measures againstimports from Singapore be repealed.
I.COMMUNITYINTEREST
(209)According to Article 21 of the basic Regulation, the Commission
examined whether the maintenance of the anti-dumping
measures would be in the overall interest of the Community.
(210)It is recalled that the anti-dumping measures have been in forceon imports of CTVs originating in Korea since 1990, China
since 1991 and Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand since 1995.
1.InterestoftheCommunityIndustry
(a)Change in the situation of the Community industry
(211)In the present investigation the Community industry is composed
of five producers out of which one is a large multinational
company operating inter alia in the market of CTVs world-
wide, one is a medium company withtwo production sites inthe Community and the remaining three are small companieswithproduction sites in Italy and Spain.
(212)The investigation has shown that the Community industry hasbenefited from the anti-dumping measures in place. In recentyears, it has made considerable efforts to restructure and toimprove its productivity through rationalisation. Since the impo-
sition of the initial anti-dumping measures in 1990 certain
Community producers have closed down their facilities; othershave considerably restructured by concentrating in core produc-tion sites and others have relocated part of their productionfacilities to other third countries. In particular, since the imposi-
tion of anti-dumping measures in 1995, the largest Community
producer has relocated part of its production facilities to Poland.
(b)Impact of the continuation of the measures
(213)Although over the period considered the situation of the
Community industry improved, certain economic indicatorsshow a declining trend. The Community industry's decrease inproduction, sales and market share between 1995 and 1997 is
mainly explained by the closure of some production facilities in
the European Union by the largest Community producer ofCTVs. Between 1997 and the IP the Community industryregained production and sales but its share of the Communitymarket decreased, since the increase in consumption during thatperiod was only to the benefit of imported CTVs.2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 28
▼B
(214)Regarding profitability, the return on sales achieved by the
Community industry improved significantly from -2,7 % in
1995 to 5,3 % in 1998, but it deteriorated to 0,8 % in 1999 andthen reached 1,3 % in the IP. The sharp deterioration in the prof-itability in 1999 can be attributed to a decrease in the salesprices of the Community industry under the pressure of lowimport prices, combined with an increase in its costs. The slight
improvement of the profitability of the Community industry in
the IP was due to a moderate increase in its sales prices.
(215)Thus, despite an overall improvement of the situation of theCommunity industry over the period considered, its situation still
seems difficult, notably in terms of profitability. In this context,
any change in the commercial environment of the productconcerned may have a significant adverse effect on the situationof the CTV industry.
(216)In view of the above, it is considered that the continuation of the
measures would allow the Community industry both to maintain
its share of the Community market and to restore its profit-ability. The continuation of the measures would therefore be inthe interest of the Community industry.
(c)Impact of the expiry of the measures
(217)Should the anti-dumping measures be allowed to expire, it is
expected that the volume of imports from the countries
concerned will increase, thus eroding the market share of the
Community industry. Furthermore, the prices of these importsare likely to exert a downward pressure on the Communityindustry's prices which will result in a deterioration of its profit-ability.
2.Interestoftheimporters/traders
(218)At the outset of the investigation questionnaires were sent to 33
importers/traders. No response was received regarding the
review investigations on the measures in place on imports origi-nating in China, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand.However, responses were received from three importers/tradersin the investigation regarding imports from Turkey, representingaround 9 % of the imports originating in the countries concerned
and in other third countries into the Community in the IP.
(219)The arguments raised by these importers related mostly to the
limited availability of small screen CTVs witha limited numberof features in the Community. It was argued that the majority of
Community production is in branded CTVs witha h ighnumber
of features thus commanding higher prices, whereas no-brandCTVs withlimited features are mostly imported from th ird coun-tries. Thus, it was argued that the continuation of measureswould limit the access of importers and also of consumers tothese CTVs.
(220)The investigation revealed that although a large part of Commu-nity production is in branded CTVs witha large number offeatures, a certain production of non-branded CTVs by bothth eCommunity industry and other Community producers was found.Furthermore, a substantial part of imports of CTVs, including
non-branded CTVs, into the Community are not covered by
anti-dumping measures and thus the continuation of measureson imports of CTVs originating in the countries concernedwould not significantly limit the availability of non-brandedCTVs witha limited number of features. Finally, substantial
price competition exists among Community producers them-
selves.
(221)In view of the above, it cannot be argued that the continuation ofthe anti-dumping measures in place would significantly limit theaccess of Community importers/traders to certain types of CTVs.2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 29
▼B
3.Interestoftheconsumer
(222)At the outset of the investigation the Commission services
informed the European Consumers Organisation (BEUC) of the
initiation of the investigation and invited it to provide commentson the likely effects of the continuation or repeal of the anti-dumping measures in place. No response was received fromBEUC or from any other consumer organisation. Thus, theexamination of the interest of consumers in the present investi-
gation was carried out on the basis of the facts available.
(223)In the course of the previous investigations on CTVs it was
found that the impact on consumers of the existence of anti-dumping measures was limited given that the anti-dumpingmeasures in place did not restrict the range of products available
to consumers, the large number of players present in the
Community market and the large range of products which theyoffer. Furthermore, its was also found that the large number ofplayers ensured a high level of price competition betweenbrands.
(224)The present investigation has not brought to light any new factsor arguments that would invalidate the above mentioned find-ings. Indeed, a large number of players continue to be active inthe CTV market and thus the range of products available to theconsumer is very large. Furthermore, substantial price competi-tion takes place between brands. This price competition is
evident in the price erosion suffered by the simplest CTV
models (14-inch CTVs) where the competition is more acute.
(225)It is therefore concluded that the continuation of the anti-dumping measures in place is not against the interests of consu-mers.
4.ConclusionsontheCommunityinterest
(226)On the basis of the above it is concluded that there are no
compelling reasons on the grounds of Community interest
against the continuation of the anti-dumping measures.
J.DETERMINATIONINRESPECTOFSINGAPORE
(227)In view of the findings in recitals 192 to 196, the anti-dumping
measures in place regarding imports originating in Singapore
should be allowed to lapse.
K.ANTI-DUMPINGMEASURES
(228)In view of the findings as described above and in order to
adequately reflect in particular changes in the pricing behaviourof exporters it is considered appropriate to maintain the samelevel of anti-dumping duties for China and Thailand, and tomodify the level of the applicable anti-dumping duties for Koreaand Malaysia.
(229)For the purpose of establishing the injury elimination level it isconsidered appropriate to base it on an amount sufficient toeliminate the injury found. In Regulation (EC) No 710/95 theduty was based on the price undercutting taking account of thefact that factors other than the dumped imports appear to have
contributed to the injury to the Community industry and
secondly that on a world-wide basis this industry had for anumber of years realised no or extremely low profits.
(230)The Community industry argued that eliminating the priceundercutting found was insufficient to fully restore the situationof the Community industry and allow it to introduce new
products. It requested that a minimum profit rate of 10 % be
used to calculate the injury elimination level, in line with thatused in Regulation (EC) No 2584/98.
(231)It should be noted that the profit margin to be used when calcu-lating the injury elimination level should be the one that the2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 30
▼B
Community industry could reasonably reachin th e absence of
dumping. It is therefore not consistent with the Community insti-tutions' practice to use a profit margin which the Community
industry could not have achieved if there was no dumping. This
examination should be based on the information relating to therelevant investigation period and may thus be different fromthat used in a previous proceeding covering the same productbut relating to a different investigation period, suchas is th e
case withRegulation (EC) No 2584/98.
(232)Information available to the Commission and relating to the IP
showed a number of factors which lead to the conclusion that itwas appropriate in the context of the current investigations to
base injury elimination on the level of price undercutting.
Firstly, as stated in recital 137, CTVs are a mature productwhose prices are regularly eroded, thus leading to relatively lowlevels of profitability. Secondly, as stated in recital 161, duringthe IP imports from other third countries, to which no dumping
was attributable, increased substantially, at prices which could
have also contributed to the low level of profitability of theCommunity industry. Finally, profitability levels of other CTVproducers world-wide are in line with those of the Communityindustry.
(233)In view of the above, it is considered appropriate to continue tobase the injury elimination level on the amount sufficient toeliminate price undercutting. In the case of Thomson TelevisionThailand, given its lack of exports to the Community of CTVsoriginating in Thailand during the IP, it is considered appropriate
to maintain the rate of the anti-dumping duty imposed by Regu-
lation (EC) No 710/95. The rate of the duties, based on thedumping margin or on the undercutting margin where the latterwas found lower than the dumping margin, would be as follows:
China
Vestel Elektronik Sanayi ve
Ticaret AS24,5 % (CTVs assembled in
Turkey)
All other exporters 44,6 %
Korea
Beko Elektronik AS 12,3 % (CTVs assembled in
Turkey)
Thomson Television (Thai-
land) Co. Ltd0 % (CTVs assembled in
Thailand)
All other exporters 15,0 %
Malaysia
Beko Elektronik AS 18,2 % (CTVs assembled in
Turkey)
Thomson Television (Thai-
land) Co. Ltd0 % (CTVs assembled in
Thailand)
All other exporters 25,1 %
Thailand
Thomson Television (Thai-
land) Co. Ltd3%
All other exporters 29,8 %.2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 31
▼B
(234)The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this
Regulation were established on the basis of the findings of the
present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation foundduring that investigation with respect to these companies. Theseduty rates (as opposed to the country-wide duty applicable to ‘allother companies’) are thus exclusively applicable to imports ofproducts originating in the country concerned and produced by
the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned.
Imported products produced by any other company not specifi-cally mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with itsname and address, including entities related to those specificallymentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject
to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.
(235)Any claim requesting the application of these individualcompany anti-dumping duty rates (e.g. following a change in
the name of the entity or following the setting up of new produc-tion or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (
1)
forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modifi-cation in the company's activities linked to production, domestic
and export sales associated with e.g. that name change or that
change in the production and sales entities. The Commission, ifappropriate, will, after consultation of the Advisory Committee,amend the Regulation accordingly by updating the list of compa-nies benefiting from individual duty rates.
L.UNDERTAKINGS
(236)Seven Chinese companies offered a joint undertaking in conjunc-
tion with the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and
Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME) withinthe meaning of Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation. The under-taking offer was supported by the Chinese authorities. Theelimination of the injurious effect of dumping is achieved by
two means: first, a price undertaking covering imports up to an
agreed volume threshold, and second an ad valorem duty levied
on imports over and above that threshold. The CCCME will alsoprovide the Commission with regular and detailed informationconcerning the exports to the Community of the companiespresenting the joint undertaking, meaning that the undertaking
can be monitored effectively by the Commission. In addition,
the support given by the Chinese authorities is such that therisk of circumvention of the undertaking is minimised.
(237)In view of this, the joint undertaking offered is therefore consid-ered acceptable and the companies concerned and the CCCMEhave been informed of the essential facts, considerations andobligations upon which acceptance is based.
(238)To further enable the Commission to monitor effectively the
compliance of the companies with their joint undertaking, when
the request for release for free circulation is presented to therelevant customs authority, exemption from the anti-dumpingduty shall be conditional on the presentation of a commercialinvoice containing at least the elements listed in the Annex I,
and a certificate issued by the China Chamber of Commerce for
Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products(CCCME) containing the elements of Annex II. This level ofinformation is also necessary to enable customs authorities toascertain with sufficient precision that shipments correspond tothe commercial documents. Where no such invoice is presented,
or when it does not correspond to the product presented to
customs, the appropriate rate of anti-dumping duty will insteadbe payable.2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 32
(1) European Commission
Directorate-General Trade
Directorate B
B-1049 Brussels.
▼B
(239)It should be noted that a breach or withdrawal of the undertaking
or a suspected breach by any of the companies concerned or the
CCCME shall be considered as a breach of the undertaking byall signatories, and an anti-dumping duty may be imposed,pursuant to Article 8(9) and (10) of the basic Regulation.
M.OTHERPROVISIONS
(240)In order to ensure an effective collection of the duty and taking
account of the findings of the investigation that in most cases the
origin of the CTV is the same as the origin of the cathode ray
tube, importers should be asked to declare the origin of thecathode ray tube. If the latter originates in Malaysia, Thailand,the People's Republic of China or the Republic of Korea andthe CTV originates in a country other than the country of originof the cathode ray tube, the importer shall be asked to submit a
separate declaration of origin issued by the final producer.
(241)Importers shall be informed about the consequences of non-
cooperation or failure to submit correct information when thecustoms authorities determine the origin of the CTVs, i.e. theuse of best facts available with the consequence that the resultmay be less favourable than if they had cooperated. Importersshall be informed in case information submitted is not accepted
and they shall be given an opportunity to provide further expla-
nations,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of
colour television receivers witha diagonal screen size of more th an15,5 cm, whether or not combined in the same housing with a radiobroadcast receiver and/or clock, other than those incorporating a
modem and a computer operating system (CTVs) and falling within
CN codes ex 8528 1252 (TARIC code: 852812 52*11),ex 8528 12 54, ex 8528 12 56, ex 8528 1258, ex 8528 12 62 (TARICcode: 8528 12 54*10, 8528 12 56*10, 8528 1258*10, 8528 12 62*11and 8528 1262*92) and ex 8528 12 66 (TARIC code:8528 12 66*10), and originating in Malaysia, Thailand, the People's
Republic of China and the Republic of Korea.
2. The rate of the duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community-
frontier price, before duty, shall be as follows:
CountryDuty
(%)TARIC additional
code
Malaysia 25,1 8900
Thailand 29,8 8900People's Republic of China 44,6 8900Republic of Korea 15,0 8900
with the exception of imports which are manufactured by the
following companies, which shall be subject to the following rate ofthe duty:
Duty
(%)TARIC additional code
a) CTVs originating in Malaysia manufactured
by:
Thomson Television (Thailand) Co. Ltd
Pathumthani, Thailand0 88152002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 33
▼B
Duty
(%)TARIC additional code
Beko Elektronik AS, Beylikduzu Mevkii,
34901 B. Cekmece Istanbul, Turkey and its
related export sales company Ram Dis
Ticaret, Buyukdere Caddesi 101, Meci-
diyekoy, Istanbul, Turkey18,2 A281
b) CTVs originating in the Republic of Korea
manufactured by:
Thomson Television (Thailand) Co. Ltd
Pathumthani, Thailand0 8815
Beko Elektronik AS, Beylikduzu Mevkii,
34901 B. Cekmece Istanbul, Turkey and its
related export sales company Ram Dis
Ticaret, Buyukdere Caddesi 101, Meci-
diyekoy, Istanbul, Turkey12,3 A281
c) CTVs originating in the People's Republic of
China manufactured by:
Vestel Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret AS,
Ambarli Petrol Ofisi Dolum Tesisleri Yolu
Avcilar, Istanbul, Turkey and its related
export sales companis:
i) Vestel Dis Ticaret AS, Ambarli Petrol
Ofisi Dolum Tesisleri Yolu Avcilar,
Istanbul, Turkey
ii) Vestel Dis Ticaret AS Ege Serbest Bolge
SB, Akcay Cad Gunduz Sokak 144/1,
Gaziemir, Izmir, Turkey
iii) Vestel Bilisim Teknolojileri Sanayi ve
Ticaret AS, Ambarli Petrol Ofisi Dolum
Tesisleri Yolu Avcilar, Istanbul, Turkey
iv) Vestel Komunikasyon Sanayi ve Ticaret
AS, Sehit Fethibey Cad. 116/301 Kat: 3
20157 Pasaport, Izmir, Turkey.24,5 A282
d) CTVs originating in Thailand manufactured
by:
Thomson Television (Thailand) Co. Ltd
Pathumthani, Thailand3,0 8815
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning
customs duties shall apply.
Article 2
1. Upon presentation of the customs declaration for release into free
circulation to the Member State's customs authority, the importer shall
declare the origin of the cathode ray tube incorporated in the CTV. In
cases where the cathode ray tube originates in Malaysia, Thailand, thePeople's Republic of China or the Republic of Korea and the CTVoriginates in a country other than the country of origin of the cathoderay tube, the importer shall also submit a declaration of origin issuedby the final producer of the CTV in conformity with the requirements
in Annex III.
2. Should a subsequent investigation by the customs authority of a
Member State or the Commission of the European Communities reveal
that any declaration of origin in the customs declaration for release into
free circulation in the Community was incorrect or if a party involvedin the determination of origin refuses access to or otherwise does notprovide the information or documentation necessary for the determina-tion of the non-preferential origin of the CTV, its origin may bedetermined by the competent authorities on the basis of the best facts2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 34
▼B
available. Where it is found that any interested party has supplied false
or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and usemay be made of facts available. Interested parties should be made
aware of the consequences of non-cooperation.
3. Where the information submitted by an interested party in the
context of this Article is not ideal in all respects it should neverthelessnot be disregarded, provided that any deficiencies are not such as tocause undue difficulty in arriving at a reasonably accurate finding and
that the information is appropriately submitted in good time and is
verifiable, and that the party has acted to the best of its ability.
4. If evidence or information is not accepted, the supplying party
shall be informed forthwith of the reasons therefor and shall be grantedan opportunity to provide further explanations within the time limit
specified. If the explanations are considered unsatisfactory, the reasons
for rejection of such evidence or information shall be disclosed to theparties concerned prior to any final decision being taken. The finaldecision shall also contain a statement of reasons.
5. If a determination of origin is based on the facts available, it
shall, where practicable and with due regard to the time limits of the
investigation, be checked by reference to information from other inde-pendent sources which may be available or information obtained fromother interested parties during the investigation.
6. If an interested party does not cooperate, or cooperates only
partially, so that relevant information is thereby withheld, the result
may be less favourable to the party than if it had cooperated.
Article 3
1. Imports under one of the following TARIC additional codes
which are produced and directly exported (i.e. shipped and invoiced)by a company named below to a company in the Community acting
as an importer shall be exempted from the anti-dumping duty imposed
by Article 1 provided that they are imported in conformity with para-graph2.
Country of origin CompanyTARIC addi-
tional code
People's Republic of China Haier Electrical Appliances Corp., Ltd, Haier
Road 1, Haier Industrial Park, Qingdao, ChinaA291
People's Republic of China Hisense Import & Export Co., Ltd, 11 Jiangxi
Road, Qingdao 266071, ChinaA292
People's Republic of China Konka Group Co., Ltd, — Overseas Chinese
Town, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, ChinaA293
People's Republic of China Sichuan Changhong Electric Co., Ltd, 35 East
Mianxing Road, HighTechPark, Mianyang,
Sichuan, ChinaA294
People's Republic of China Skyworth Multimedia International (Shenzhen)
Co., Ltd, — 4F, 425 Ba Gua Ling Ind. District,
Shenzhen, ChinaA295
People's Republic of China TCL King Electrical Appliances (HuiZhou)
Co., Ltd, — 19#, ZhongKai Development
Zone Huizhou, Guangdong, ChinaA296
People's Republic of China Xiamen Overseas Chinese Electronic Co., Ltd,
22 Huli Dadao, Xiamen, 361006, ChinaA2972002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 35
▼C1
▼B
2. Imports mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be exempted from the
duty on condition that:
(a) a commercial invoice containing at least the elements listed in the
Annex I, as well as a certificate issued by the China Chamber of
Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and ElectronicProducts (CCCME) containing at least the elements listed in theAnnex II are presented to Member States customs authorities uponpresentation of the declaration for release into free circulation; and
(b) the goods declared and presented to customs correspond precisely
to the description on the commercial invoice and the certificate.
Article 4
The proceeding regarding imports of the product described in Article
1(1) and originating in Singapore is hereby terminated.
Article 5
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its
publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities .
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable
in all Member States.2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 36
▼B
ANNEX I
Necessary information for commercial invoices accompanying sales made
subjecttotheundertaking
1. The heading ‘COMMERCIAL INVOICE ACCOMPANYING GOODS
SUBJECT TO AN UNDERTAKING’.
2. The name of the company mentioned in Article 2.1 issuing the commercial
invoice.
3. The commercial invoice number.
4. The number of the relevant Undertaking Certificate.
5. The date of issue of the commercial invoice.6. The TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice are to be
customs cleared at the Community frontier.
7. The exact description of the goods, including:
— the product code number (PCN),
— the technical specification of the goods (including size in cm, format of
the screen, existence of the options teletext and/or stereo),
— the company product code number (CPC) (if applicable),— CN code,— quantity (to be given in units).
8. The description of the terms of the sale, including:
— price per unit,
— the applicable payment terms,— the applicable delivery terms,— country of destination and port of entrance into the EU,— total discounts and rebates,— country of origin.
9. Name of the company acting as an importer to which the invoice is issued
directly by the company.
10. The name of the official of the company that has issued the invoice and the
following signed declaration:
‘I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export to the European
Community of the goods covered by this invoice is being made within the
scope and under the terms of the undertaking offered by [company], and
accepted by the European Commission through Decision 2002/683/EC (
1). I
declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and
correct.’2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 37
(1) See page 42 of this Official Journal.
▼B
ANNEX II
Necessary information for the certificate of CCCME accompanying sales
madesubjecttotheundertaking
1. The name, address, fax and telephone number of the China Chamber of
Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products
(CCCME).
2. The name of the company mentioned in Article 3.1 issuing the commercial
invoice.
3. The commercial invoice number.4. The date of issue of the commercial invoice.
5. The TARIC additional code under which the goods on the invoice are to be
customs cleared at the Community frontier.
6. The exact description of the goods, including:
— the product reporting code (PRC),
— the technical specification of the goods (including size in cm, format of
the screen, existence of the options teletext and/or stereo),
— the company product code number (CPC) (if applicable),— CN code.
7. The precise quantity in units exported.
8. The number of the certificate.9. The name of the official of CCCME that has issued the certificate and the
following signed declaration:
‘I, the undersigned, certify that this license is given for direct export to the
European Community of the goods covered by the commercial invoice
accompanying sales made subject to the undertaking and that the license is
issued within the scope and under the terms of the undertaking offered by
[company] and accepted by the European Commission through Decision
2002/683/EC. I declare that the information provided in this certificate is
correct and that the quantity covered by this certificate is not exceeding
the threshold of the undertaking.’
10. Date.
11. The seal of CCCME.2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 38
▼B
ANNEX III
2002R1531 — EN — 30.08.2002 — 000.001 — 39