COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 10 II 1995 
COM(95) 548 final 
Proposal for a 
COU NCIL RHGUL AllO N (nC ) 
amending Regulation (EEC) No 2887/93 by imposing 
an additional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain electronic weighing scab 
originating in Singapore 
(presented by the Commission» 

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
1. By Council Regulation (EEC) No 2887/93, a definitive anti-dumping duty of 10,8% 
was imposed on imports of certain electronic weighing scales originating in 
Singapore. 
2. By Notice of 11 May 1994, the Commission announced the initiation of an 
investigation pursuant to Article 13(11) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 
into the alleged absorption by the sole known exporter Teraoka Weigh System Pte 
Ltd. 
3. The investigation into absorption of the anti-dumping duty by the exporter covered 
the original investigation period, 1 January to 31 December 1991, which had been 
taken into account for calculation of the anti-dumping duty, and the period 
following the imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty and prior to the 
initiation of the present investigation, i.e. from 23 October 1993 to 30 April 1994. 
4. In order to establish the existence of absorption, the Commission examined 
whether, following the imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty, the import 
prices at the Community frontier had fallen. 
Import prices were determined on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable 
for the product sold for export to the Community, since all export sales were made 
directly to independent importers in the Community. 
5. The information on export prices provided by the exporter revealed that the 
exporter has absorbed partially the effect of the anti-dumping duty. 
The calculation established an absorption of 4.6%. This is, therefore, the amount of 
additional anti-dumping duty required. 
6. Since the imposition of the anti-dumping duty was considered in the Community's 
interest, any measure which compensates for the amount of absorption must also be 
in the interest of the Community. 
7. Accordingly, an additional anti-dumping duty should be imposed, which will 
increase the anti-dumping duty of 10,8% currently payable to 15,4% (i.e. 10,8% + 
4,6%). 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 
amending Regulation (EEC) No 2887/93 by imposing 
an additional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain electronic weighing scales 
originating in Singapore 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3283/94 of 22 December 1994 on 
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European 
Community1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1251/952, and in particular Article 
23 thereof, 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection 
against dumped or subsidised imports from countries not members of the European 
Economic Community3, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 522/944, and in 
particular Articles 12, 13(11) and 14 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the 
Advisory Committee, 
Whereas: 
1 OJNoL349, 31.12.1994, p. 1. 
2 OJ No L 122, 2.6.1995, p. 1. 
3 OJ No L 209, 2.8.1988, p. 1. 
4 OJ No L 66, 10.3.1994, p. 10. 
A. PROCEDURE 
(1) By Council Regulation (EEC) No 2887/935, a definitive anti-dumping duty of 
10,8% was imposed on imports of certain electronic weighing scales originating in 
Singapore. 
(2) The Commission subsequently received a complaint alleging that the anti-dumping 
duty had been borne, wholly or partly, by the sole known exporter, Teraoka Weigh 
System Pte Ltd. The evidence for this allegation consisted of price lists of importers 
selling the product in question which, according to the complainant, demonstrated 
that, since the imposition of the anti-dumping duty, the resale prices of most 
models have remained unchanged or have actually declined and that therefore the 
anti-dumping duty has been borne by the exporter concerned. 
(3) The complaint was lodged by the Community producers which had also lodged the 
initial anti-dumping complaint. 
(4) Since the complaint contained evidence of absorption of anti-dumping duty by the 
exporter, the Commission announced the initiation of an investigation as provided 
for in Article 13 (11) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 (hereafter "the basic 
Regulation"), by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European 
Communities6. 
(5) The Commission officially advised the exporter and importers known to be 
concerned and gave interested parties the opportunity to make their views known in 
writing. 
(6) Replies to the Commission's questionnaire were received from the exporter subject 
to the investigation and from six unrelated importers. 
(7) The investigation into the alleged absorption of the anti-dumping duty by the 
exporter covered the original investigation period, 1 January to 31 December 1991 
(hereinafter referred to as the "reference period"), which had been taken into 
account for calculation of the anti-dumping duty, and the period following the 
imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty and prior to the initiation of the 
present investigation, i.e. from 23 October 1993 to 30 April 1994 (hereinafter 
referred to as the "investigation period"). 
5 OJ No L 263, 22.10.1993, p. 1 
6 OJNoC 129, 11.5.1994, p. 6. 
B. PRODUCT 
(8) The product under consideration is electronic weighing scales for use in the retail 
trade which incorporate a digital display of the weight, unit price and price to be 
paid (whether or not including a means of printing this data) falling within CN 
Code 8423 81 50 (Taric Code 842381 50 10). 
C. ABSORPTION OF THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY 
BY THE EXPORTER 
I. Existence of absorption of duty 
(9) In order to establish the existence of absorption, the Commission examined 
whether, following the imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty, the import 
prices free-at-Community frontier (before payment of customs and anti-dumping 
duty) had fallen. Import prices were determined on the basis of the prices actually 
paid or payable for the product sold for export to the Community, since all export 
sales were made directly to independent importers in the Community. The 
Commission based its findings on the export prices provided by the exporter which 
replied to the Commission's questionnaire. 
(10) One model was, as far as production in Singapore is concerned, a completely new 
model which was not exported to the Community during the reference period. This 
model has therefore been excluded from the calculations. 
(11) In the reference period imports were mainly invoiced in Yen, whereas the imports 
in the investigation period were made in US$. The exporter started to invoice in 
US$ around the time of imposition of the definitive duty. For the price comparison, 
import prices have been converted into Singapore $ (which was the currency used 
for calculating the dumping margin), on the basis of the exchange rates prevailing 
during the respective periods. 
(12) The information on export prices provided by the exporter clearly shows that, 
following the imposition of the definitive duty, export prices fell considerably for 
most models. 
4 
(13) Therefore, by reducing its prices for export to the Community after imposition of 
the definitive anti-dumping duty, the exporter of electronic weighing scales 
originating in Singapore has absorbed completely or partially the effect of the anti­
dumping duty. 
II. Level of absorption of the duty 
(14) The level of absorption of the anti-dumping duty has been calculated by comparing 
the difference between the weighted average free-at-Community-frontier price per 
model in the reference period and the weighted average free-at-Community-frontier 
price per model in the investigation period. 
(15) In order to arrive at the level of this absorption, the Commission calculated the 
amount of absorption per model which equals the amount of reduction in the export 
price, plus the duty amount initially intended for collection (equal to the dumping 
margin) during the reference period, minus the amount of anti-dumping duty 
actually paid on the reduced export price during the investigation period. 
(16) In those instances where the reduction in the export price was greater than the 
amount of duty initially intended (dumping margin), the amount borne by the 
exporter has been capped so as not to exceed that amount. 
(17) The total amount of absorption is 4,6% when expressed as a percentage of the total 
free-at-Community-frontier price for all models exported, which represents the 
amount of the additional anti-dumping duty required. 
D. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 
(18) The Commission has no information to suggest that the normal value, as 
established for the reference period, has altered. It can therefore be concluded that 
the dumping margin has increased commensurate with the reduction in export 
prices and corresponds consequently at least to the sum of the original duty and of 
the amount borne. 
E. COMMENTS RECEIVED 
(19) The Singapore exporter claimed that, in investigating the allegation of absorption, 
the Commission should make a comparison of prices in a Community currency and 
not in a third country currency, because a decrease in prices expressed in a third 
country currency would not necessarily mean that a corresponding decrease in 
prices takes place on the Community market. 
5 
In assessing the allegation of absorption, the Commission had to compare the 
Singapore exporter's prices to the first independent customer during the reference 
period with those of the investigation period in order to establish whether the 
exporter had borne the duty. It should be recalled that the exporter's prices were 
expressed in Yen in the reference period and in US $ in the investigation period. In 
order to solve the problem of comparing export prices in different currencies, the 
Commission converted them into the currency of the exporter, Singapore $, which 
was also, as stated above, the currency originally used for calculating the dumping 
margin. There is no reason which would make the comparison more appropriate in 
another currency than in Singapore $. 
As to the argument that a decrease in prices in a foreign currency would not 
necessarily mean a decrease of prices on the EC market involving an absorption of 
the duty, the Commission considers this argument to have no foundation. Article 
13(1 l)(a) of the basic Regulation makes clear that, in establishing the existence of 
absorption of an anti-dumping duty, it is the behaviour of the exporter which must 
be examined and that if, as in this case, the exporter's price has fallen, there is 
evidence (rebuttable) that the exporter has borne the duty. 
(20) The Singapore exporter further alleged that, as the Commission took into account 
different physical characteristics for the various versions of one model during the 
reference period, and as separate dumping margins were thus established for these 
different versions, the same approach should be taken during this investigation. 
Additionally, it was argued that the importers tended to procure the simplest 
versions after the imposition of duties and that this was the reason for the decline in 
the exporter's prices. 
On the issue of physical characteristics, it was not always possible to compare 
exactly each version of the same model between the reference period and the 
investigation period as these versions and their marketing patterns have changed 
over time. As regards the allegation that the importers tended to procure the 
simplest versions since the imposition of the anti-dumping duty, it should be 
pointed out that 30% of the sales (65% in terms of value of total exports) during the 
investigation period were accounted for by the most sophisticated and expensive 
model, which had not been exported during the reference period. Furthermore, for 
one model, the exporter ceased to export one version which was less expensive than 
the versions of the model imported during the investigation period. In any event, 
the claim that importers had shifted towards cheaper versions could not reliably be 
confirmed in view of the surge of imports immediately prior to the imposition of 
provisional duties, as explained in recital 27. 
6 
Thus, the investigation showed that the situation was more complex than alleged by 
the exporter and that, while there existed some factors which might explain a 
downward movement in prices, other factors which were also present clearly 
exerted an upward pressure on prices. In these circumstances, it appeared fairer and 
more appropriate to make a comparison on a model-by-model basis. The 
Commission calculated the weighted average prices for each model, rather than 
individual versions, during the two above-mentioned periods, which is considered 
to be a reasonable approach in the context of an Article 13 (11) investigation, the 
purpose of which is not to establish a dumping margin, but to determine any change 
in the exporter's prices. 
Moreover, it should be recalled that a single anti-dumping duty was then 
established and imposed on all models and versions of the like product. As this 
investigation is concerned with whether or not that duty has been borne by the 
exporter, there is no compelling reason for a breakdown of price comparisons 
identical to the breakdown of normal values established during the reference 
period. 
(21) It was further claimed that the allowances made for physical differences in 
establishing the export price in the reference period should be adjusted for the 
further reason that the cost of the same model could vary according to its 
destination because of different options requested by customers in different 
segments of the Community market. It was then argued again that importers tended 
to procure the simplest, and therefore less expensive versions after the imposition 
of duties. 
Apart from the difficulty to distinguish this argument from the one dealt with and 
rejected in recital 20, the relevance of considering different market segments within 
the Community and allegedly different cost structures of the various models of the 
like product exported there in the context of an investigation under Article 13 (11) 
is unclear. Indeed, the aim of such an investigation is not to verify and compare the 
cost structure of the models under consideration at different points in time, but to 
establish whether or not the Singapore exporter has decreased its export prices 
between the two periods in question. 
(22) The Singapore exporter found it unjustified that the Commission in its comparison 
included a model not exported during the reference period, even though it was 
admitted that the model belonged to the same range as the model used in the 
comparison. It was also argued that there was a major price difference between the 
two models. 
7 
The Commission considered that, given its characteristics, this model was a 
replacement of a pre-existing model in the same range (even if it bears a different 
serial number). This was confirmed during verification visits at the premises of the 
importers. It was therefore considered appropriate to include this model in the 
comparison. 
F. CONCLUSION 
(23) On the basis of the above findings, the Council concludes that the exporter has 
effectively borne a part of the anti-dumping duty through a corresponding reduction 
in its export price and that its dumping margin is not lower than the sum of the 
original duty and the amount borne. 
G. COMMUNITY INTEREST 
(24) The aim of an additional anti-dumping duty as provided for by Article 13(11) of the 
basic Regulation is to compensate for the amount of anti-dumping duty borne by 
the exporter. 
(25) The Commission has no reason to believe that its findings on Community interest, 
as set out in recitals 53 to 54 of Regulation (EEC) No 1103/937 imposing a 
provisional anti-dumping duty, confirmed by recitals 18 to 19 of Regulation (EEC) 
No 2887/93 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty, on imports of the product in 
question, warrant modification. 
(26) Moreover, given that the absorption of anti-dumping duty by the exporter cancels 
the effect of the anti-dumping duty and therefore prevents the removal of the injury 
caused by dumping and that the imposition of the anti-dumping duty was 
considered in the Community's interest, a measure aimed at restoring the effect of 
the said duty is therefore in the interest of the Community. 
(27) The Singapore exporter pointed out that there has been a substantial decrease of its 
exports to the Community from 4 543 units in the calendar year 1991 to 963 units 
during the seven month investigation period, and has questioned whether it is in the 
Community interest to impose an additional duty given the decrease of its share of 
the EC market. 
7 OJ No L 112, 6.5.1993, p.20. 
8 
However, as an anti-dumping duty was imposed on the strength of a finding of 
injurious dumping, it is obvious that the volume of exports in 1991 had been 
achieved through dumping. Consequently, it was to be expected that such a volume 
would decrease following the imposition of the anti-dumping duty even though the 
duty was partially absorbed by the exporter. This fact alone, therefore, is not a valid 
reason for considering an additional duty to be inappropriate in circumstances 
where the original duty has been found to have been totally or partially borne by the 
exporter. Indeed, the fact that the anti-dumping duty may have had some effect does 
not exclude ipso facto that absorption has taken place and reduced, if not entirely 
annulled, the impact of that duty. 
Moreover, in addressing this argument, it should be pointed out that huge imports 
of the exporters products took place before the imposition of the provisional anti­
dumping duty. As a consequence, the importers had enough stock to cover their 
sales during the investigation period without having to import a number remotely 
equivalent to the actual sales. Indeed, at the end of the reference period there was 
still a considerable number of scales in stock. It is therefore considered, for the 
above reasons, that it is appropriate to impose an additional anti-dumping duty. 
H. ADDITIONAL ANTI-DUMPING DUTY 
(28) In order to compensate for the level of absorption and to restore the effect of the 
original duty, an additional duty of 4,6% is required to bring the current export 
price up to the level envisaged by Regulation (EEC) No 2887/93. 
(29) The rate of the anti-dumping duty currently in force is 10,8% of the net, free-at-
Community-frontier price. An additional duty of 4,6% should be imposed to 
compensate for the level of absorption bringing the total anti-dumping duty to a rate 
of 15,4%. 
(30) For practical reasons, the imposition of this additional duty takes the form of an 
amendment to Regulation (EEC) No 2887/93. This does not constitute a 
modification of the anti-dumping duty within the meaning of Article 15(1) of the 
basic Regulation and, therefore, the expiry date of the anti-dumping duty, including 
the additional duty, remains unchanged, subject to the relevant provision of 
Regulation (EC) No 3283/94. 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION : 
Article 1 
Article 1 (2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2887/93 is replaced by the following : 
"(b) Singapore 
Products manufactured by : 
Teraoka Weigh-System Pte Ltd, Singapore 15,4% 
(Taric additional code 8703) 
All others 31,0% 
(Taric additional code 8704)" 
Article 2 
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. 
Done at Brussels 
For the Council, 
The President 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(95) 548 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 02 11 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-95-585-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-95837-5 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg