COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
COM(91>326 final 
Brussels, 19 August 1991 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) 
i^F 
;*?? «rending Régulation (ŒD) No 1048/90 with regard to the 
irrposition of a definitive anti-durrping duty on irrports of 
«rail screen colour television receivers originating in the 
Republ ic of Korea 
(presented by the Commission) 
?#t-
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
1. In April 1990 the Council imposed a definitive ant i -dumping duty on 
imports of small screen colour television receivers (SCTVs) 
originating in the Republic of Korea, by Regulation (EEC) 1048/90. 
2. In the above regulation, duties of between 10,2 % and 10,5 % were 
imposed on imports from three cooperating exporters. 
3. The duty applicable to other Korean exporters (the general duty) who 
refused to cooperate in the investigation, was established on the 
basis of facts available, in accordance with Article 7(7)(b) of 
Regulation (EEC) 2423/88, at a level of 19.6 %, with the dumping 
margin calculated by comparing an export price based on the average 
C.I.F. unit price of imports into the Community from Korea with a 
normal value based on the average domestic selling price of the 
cooperating Korean exporters. This method was used because of the 
activities of one particular exporter which was known to be sending 
large volumes of SCTVs to the Community, often transhipped through 
third countries, and which refused to co-operate with the Commission. 
4. In November 1990 the Commission received information from the 
Electronic Industries Association of Korea (E.I.A.K.) to the effect 
that the non-cooperating exporter mentioned above was no longer 
exporting small screen colour television receivers to the European 
Community. They alleged that this changed situation removed the 
justification for the 19,6 % general duty and suggested that it 
should be reduced to the level of the highest duty for a cooperating 
company (i.e. 10,5 %). 
5. In the light of this information, the Commission, in January 1991, 
opened a partial review on its own initiative, limited to question of 
whether or not to modify the general duty. 
6. The Commission's investigation showed that the exporter whose 
activities led to the imposition of the 19.6 % general duty is no 
longer producing SCTVs in Korea. 
In addition, it was established that the quantities exported by other 
non-cooperating exporters were extremely small, even before the 
imposition of the anti-dumping duty. 
"L 
2 -
In view of these changed circumstances, the imposition an anti­
dumping duty on a different basis from that used for the cooperating 
exporters is no longer Justified, and the appropriate level for the 
general duty should be highest rate of anti-dumping duty found for a 
cooperating exporter, i.e. 10.5 %. 
8. Regulation (EEC) No 1048/90 should therefore be amended to reduce the 
general duty from 19.6 % to 10.5 %. This measure shall lapse on the 
same day as the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed by 
Regulation (EEC) No 1048/90. 
9. Of course, if the Commission becomes aware of a resumption of 
production of SCTVs in Korea by the exporter mentioned in 
Paragraph 3, 4 and 6, it will consider reopening a new partial review 
in order to investigate the matter. 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) 
«rending Regulation (EEC) No 1048/90 with regard to the 
irrposition of a definitive anti-durrping duty on irrports of 
«rail screen colour television receivers originating in the 
Republ ic of Korea 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on 
protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not 
members of the European Economic Commun!ty<1), and in particular 
Article 14 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after 
consultation within the Advisory Committee as provided for under the 
above Regulation. 
(1) OJ No L 209, 02.08.1988, p. 1 
U 
- 2 -
I. PREVIOUS PROCEDURE 
(a) Imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty 
(1) In February 1988 the Commission initiated an anti-dumping proceeding 
concerning imports of small screen colour television receivers 
(hereafter referred to as SCTVs) originating in the Republic of 
Korea <2>. This followed a complaint lodged by the European 
Association of Consumer Electronic Manufacturers (E.A.C.E.M.), 
representing a major proportion of Community production. Following an 
investigation, a provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed by 
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3232/89(3), and a definitive duty 
was subsequently imposed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1048/90(4). 
(b) General duty 
(2) In Regulation (EEC) No 1048/90, duties of between 10,2 % and 10,5 % 
were imposed on imports from three cooperating exporters. 
(3) The duty applicable to other Korean exporters (hereafter referred to 
as the general duty) and in particular to one exporter who refused to 
cooperate in the investigation and who was known to have exported 
large quantities of the product concerned to the Community, was 
established on the basis of what were considered to be the most 
appropriate facts available, i.e. by comparing an export price based 
on the average C.I.F. unit price of imports into the Community from 
Korea with a normal value based on the average domestic selling price 
of the cooperating Korean exporters. The margin thus established was 
19.6%. 
(2) OJ No C 44, 17.02.1988, p. 2 
(3) 0J No L 314, 28.10.1989, p. 1 
(4) OJ No L 107, 27.04.1990, p. 56 
- 3 -
>-II» REVIEW PROCEDURE 
(4) in November 1990 the Commission received information from the 
Electronic Industries Association of Korea (E.I.A.K.) to the effect 
that the non-cooperating exporter mentioned above was no longer 
exporting small screen colour television receivers to the European 
Community. It was alleged that this changed situation removed the 
Justification for the 19,6 % general duty and suggested that it 
should be reduced to the level of the highest duty imposed on imports 
of a cooperating exporter (i.e. 10,5 %). 
(5) After consulting the Advisory Committee, the Commission decided that 
there was sufficient evidence to Justify the initiation of a partial 
review, limited in scope to the question of whether or not to modify 
the general duty. The partial review was opened on the initiative of 
the Commission, in accordance with Article 14 of Council Regulation 
(EEC) 2423/88, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the 
European Communities*5*. 
(6) The Commission officially advised E.I.A.K., the exporters who 
cooperated in the original Investigation, the representatives of the 
exporting country and the complainant in the original proceeding 
(E.A.C.E.M.), and gave the parties concerned the opportunity to make 
their views known in writing and to request a hearing. 
(7) E.I.A.K., some exporters and E.A.C.E.M. made their views known in 
wr i t i ng. 
(8) The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed to be 
necessary for the purposes of this proceeding and in particular 
received and verified to the extent necessary information from 
E.I.A.K. 
(5) OJ No C 18, 26.1.1991, p. 3 
G 
- 4 -
Ml. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 
(a) Determination of general duty in original anti-dumping investigation 
(9) As is stated by the Commission in Recital 33 of Regulation (EEC) 
3232/89 (imposing the provisional duty), for those Korean exporters 
who did not make themselves known during the course of the original 
investigation, dumping was determined on the basis of what were 
considered by the Commission to be the most appropriate facts 
available, in accordance with Article 7(7)(b) of Regulation (EEC) 
No 2423/88. 
(10) For these non-cooperating exporters, the dumping margin was 
calculated by comparing an export price based on the average C.I.F. 
unit price of imports into the Community from Korea (according to 
1987 Eurostat data) with a normal value based on the average 
domestic selling price of the cooperating Korean exporters. The 
resulting dumping margin of 19.6 % became that applicable to the 
non-cooperating exporters and was imposed as the general duty, while 
the imports of the three cooperating Korean exporters (Daewoo, 
Goldstar and Samsung) are subject to definitive anti-dumping duties 
of 10.2 %, 10.4 % and 10.5 % respectively. 
(11) The major reason for not considering the highest duty imposed on 
imports from a cooperating exporter to be appropriate for the non-
cooperating exporters was the behaviour of one particular 
manufacturer based in Korea. This company was known to be exporting 
large quantities of SCTVs to the Community, with many of them being 
trans-shipped via third countries. It was approached by the 
Commission during its on-the-spot investigation, with the assistance 
of the Electronic Industries Association of Korea, with a view to 
securing its co-operation. However, the company refused to co­
operate. 
JFr - 5 -
(12) The Commission decided, and the Council confirmed, that, in these 
circumstances, neither the dumping margins determined for the 
cooperating exporters nor the information contained in the complaint 
provided the most appropriate basis for determining the margin of 
dumping for non-cooperating exporters. 
(b) Changed trade situation 
(13) The 19.6 % general duty was imposed on the basis of the facts 
available for the original investigation period - 1987. In view of 
the information received from E.I.A.K. and other sources, it is 
clear that the trade situation concerning the above exporter has now 
changed considerably. 
(i) Information from E.I.A.K. 
(14) According to E.I.A.K.'s internal statistics, and independent data 
obtained from the Korean Foreign Trade Association, both of which 
were verified by the Commission, the exporter in question has not 
exported SCTVs to the Community since 1988. Furthermore, its total 
exports from Korea of SCTVs to all destinations in 1990 amounted to 
only 3 % of the 1988 volume. 
(15) E.I.A.K. supplied evidence that the exporter involved had shifted 
its capacity away from CTV's to other electronic products. 
(16) The exporter, which is a member of E.I.A.K., had supplied the 
Association with a signed declaration that it no longer planned to 
export SCTVs to the Community. Furthermore, it was established that 
it had converted its production facilities to the manufacture of 
other electronic products. 
f 
(ii) Information from Korean Ministry of Trade and Industry 
(17) In May 1991, the Ministry of Trade and Industry of Korea certified 
to the Commission that the exporter had now ceased all production 
of SCTVs in Korea, and provided appropriate documentary evidence. 
(c) Imports from other non-cooperatIng exporters 
(18) The Commission also established that the export volumes of other 
non-cooperating exporters were extremely small, even before the 
imposition of the anti-dumping duty. 
(d) Conclusion 
(19) In view of these changed circumstances, the Council concludes that 
the situation which Justified the use of a different basis from that 
applied to the cooperating exporters for the purpose of imposing an 
anti-dumping duty no longer exists. The exporter mentioned in 
recitals 13-17 has now ceased production of SCTVs in Korea and 
therefore the quantities exported to the Community by non-
cooperating exporters can only be very small. In these circumstances 
the appropriate level for the general duty should be the highest 
rate of anti-dumping duty imposed on imports from a cooperating 
exporter i.e. 10.5 %. 
(20) This rate of duty does not act as an incentive to circumvention, nor 
as a reward for non-cooperation, but constitutes an equitable 
response to the changed trade situation. 
(21) The parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations 
upon which the findings were based, and were granted a period within 
which to make representations to the Commission. Where appropriate, 
their comments were taken into consideration. E.A.C.E.M. requested, 
and was granted, an opportunity to be heard by the Commission .vith 
regard to its findings in this proceeding. 
a 
- 7 -
c IV. AMENDMENT TO REGULATION (EEC) No 1048/90 
(22) Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1048/90 should therefore be amended 
to reduce the general anti-dumping duty from 19.6 % to 10.5 %, with 
effect from the date of entry into force of the present regulation. 
(23) This measure shall lapse on the same day as the definitive anti­
dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 1048/90, 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION : 
ArtlÇla 1 
In Article 1 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1048/90 the figure "19.6 %" is 
replaced by "10.5 %M. 
The remainder of Regulation (EEC) No 1048/90 remains unchanged. 
Article 2 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its 
publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. 
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirely and directly applicable 
in a 11 Member States. 
'"Lis 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(91) 326 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 1102 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-91-373-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-75361-7 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg