COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
COM(93) 448 final 
Brussels, 7 October 1993 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) 
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty 
on imports of certain magnetic disks (3.5" microdisks) 
originating in Japan, Taiwan and the People's Republic of China, 
and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed 
(presented by the Commission) 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
1. The Commission, by Regulation (EEC) No 920/93(1) of 15 April 1993 imposed a 
provisional duty on imports of certain magnetic disks (3.5" microdisks) originating in 
Japan, Taiwan and the People's Republic of China. The Council, by Regulation (EEC) 
No 2206/93(2) of 5 August 1993 extended this duty for a period not exceeding two 
months. 
2. Following the adoption of the provisional measures, the interested parties, who so 
requested, were heard by the Commission and made written submissions. Upon 
request, parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of 
which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive duties and the 
definitive collection of amounts secured by way of a provisional duty. They were also 
granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to the disclosure. 
3. The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered and, where 
appropriate, the Commission's findings were modified to take account of them. 
4. The facts, as finally established, show dumping for almost all the exporters concerned 
as well as injury to the Community industry caused thereby, especially demonstrated 
by sales suppression, price depression and a resulting lack of profitability. 
5. In these circumstances, the Commission considers that it is in the Community interest 
to adopt definitive measures intended to eliminate the injurious effect of the dumped 
imports concerned. Consequently, in accordance with Article 12 of Council Regulation 
(EEC) No 2423/88(3), the Commission, after consultation within the Advisory 
Committee, proposes the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of 
certain magnetic disks (3.5" microdisks) originating in Japan, Taiwan and the 
People's Republic of China. 
0) 
(2) 
(3) OJ No L 95, 21.4.1993, p. 5. 
OJNoL 196, 5.8.1993, p. 47. 
OJNo L209, 2 8.1988, p. 1. 
6. In view of the dumping margins established, and the seriousness of the injury caused 
to the Community industry, it is also proposed that the amounts secured by way of 
provisional anti-dumping duty be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of 
the duty definitively imposed. 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) 
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty 
on imports of certain magnetic disks (3.5M microdisks) 
originating in Japan, Taiwan and the People's Republic of China, 
and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed 
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 
Community(1), and in particular Article 12 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consultation within the 
Advisory Committee as provided for under the above Regulation, 
Whereas: 
A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES 
(1) The Commission, by Regulation (EEC) No 920/93(2) (hereinafter "the provisional 
Regulation"), imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community 
of certain magnetic disks (hereinafter referred to as 3.5" microdisks) originating in 
Japan, Taiwan and the People's Republic of China (hereinafter "China"), and falling 
within CN Code ex 85 23 20 90. The duty was extended for a maximum period of two 
months by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2206/93(3). 
(1) OJNoL209, 2.8.1988, p. 1. 
(2) OJ NoL95, 21.4.1993, p. 5. 
(3) OJNoL 196, 5.8.1993, p. 47. 
B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 
(2) Subsequent to the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty, the interested parties 
who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard by the Commission. Certain 
of those parties also presented written submissions making known their views on the 
findings. 
(3) Two importers which had not cooperated in the investigation made written 
representations to the Commission following the introduction of the provisional anti­
dumping duty. One of them requested and was granted a hearing. 
(4) Upon request, parties were informed in writing of the essential facts and considerations 
on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive duties 
and the definitive collection of amounts secured by way of provisional duty. They were 
also granted a reasonable period within which to make representations subsequent to 
the disclosure. 
(5) The oral and written comments presented by the parties were considered, and, where 
appropriate, the Commission's findings were modified to take account of them. 
(6) Because of the volume and complexity of the data examined, the investigation could 
not be concluded within the time limit provided for in Article 7(9)(a) of Regulation 
(EEC) No 2423/88 (hereinafter referred to as "the Basic Regulation"). 
C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION/LIKE PRODUCT 
(7) As no new arguments have been presented regarding the product under consideration 
and the like product, the Council adopts the findings of the Commission as set out in 
recitals (7) to (12) of the provisional Regulation. 
D. INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT OF CHINESE EXPORTERS 
(8) Several producers in China reiterated their request that the Commission make individual 
company findings for each of them, without, however, presenting any evidence 
additional to that submitted prior to the provisional findings and referred to at 
recital (13) of the provisional Regulation. 
The Commission recalls, in this respect, that individual treatment is not a requirement 
of the Basic Regulation. Indeed, the grant of individual treatment to some of those 
producers may affect or even distort the outcome of the calculation of the country-wide 
anti-dumping duty In addition, it is in practice extremely difficult to establish in the 
case of a country such as China whether a company really enjoys, both in point of law 
and in fact, independence from the State and in particular whether a company has 
permanent independence where it appears to enjoy independence at a given point 
in time. 
Finally, since the grant of individual treatment may cause inappropriate levels of duty 
to be imposed and gives rise to an opportunity for the State to circumvent anti-dumping 
measures by channelling through the exporter with the lowest duty, the Commission has 
come to the conclusion that departures from the general rule, whereby a single anti­
dumping duty is established for State-trading countries, should only be made where the 
Commission is completely satisfied that the effectiveness of the measures is 
not undermined. 
In the provisional Regulation, the facts established for Hanny Magnetics (Zuhai) Ltd. 
during the Commission's investigation demonstrated that this company is free of 
government intrusion in the conduct of its business, and individual treatment was 
granted. In the light of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty the 
Commission considers that the individual treatment granted to this company should be 
maintained. Furthermore, given the small difference found in the dumping margin for 
this producer and that applicable to the other producers, the risk of circumvention 
is minimal. 
The findings at the said recital (13) are thus maintained. 
(9) The Council confirms the Commission's findings. 
E. DUMPING 
1. Normal yajug 
(10) For the purpose of the definitive findings, normal value was, in general, established on 
the basis of the same methods as those used in the provisional determination of 
dumping, after taking into consideration new facts and arguments presented by 
the parties. 
(11) Following publication of the provisional Regulation, one Taiwanese producer claimed 
that the normal value established should have been based on the prices of all sales of 
the like product on the domestic market, including sales made at a loss. 
As stated in recital (18) of the provisional Regulation, normal value in Taiwan for this 
producer was established in accordance with Article 2(3 )(a) and (4) of the 
Basic Regulation, on the basis of the price actually paid in the ordinary course of trade 
for domestic sales of the like product which were made in sufficient quantities to permit 
a proper comparison. 
However, it was found that the majority of its domestic sales of one product type were 
made at a substantial loss. The Commission had, therefore, to exclude from the 
determination of normal value the sales of this product type, the prices of which did not 
permit recovery, in the normal course of trade in the investigation period, of all costs 
reasonably allocated. 
As regards the other product type, the producer in question was able to show that its 
prices for sales of this product were sufficiently profitable to be considered to have 
been made in the ordinary course of trade over the investigation period. Accordingly, 
normal value for this type was established by reference to those prices. 
(12) The producer in China referred to in recital (21) of the provisional Regulation argued 
that the normal value established on the basis of an analogue third market economy, 
namely Taiwan, should be adjusted to reflect the lower manufacturing cost structure in 
China. 
The Commission cannot accept this argument. To make allowances for alleged 
differences in cost structures in a State-trading country would involve relying on that 
country's costs of production, in particular its labour, utility and transport costs, property 
charges, and other inputs, which are not determined by market forces and would, 
therefore, not permit a proper comparison. 
(13) The Council confirms these findings and those set out at recitals (15) to (23) of the 
provisional Regulation concerning normal value. 
2. Export price 
(14) One Taiwanese producer claimed that, in its calculation of export prices, the 
Commission, for reasons of equity, should have excluded export sales made to 
complainant Community producers. 
The Commission could not, however, accept any such exclusion, as the sales in 
question satisfied the provisions of Article 2(8)(a) of the Basic Regulation regarding the 
determination of export prices. Indeed, not only is such an exclusion not provided for 
by the Basic Regulation, but the reliability of these prices is unaffected, in the present 
case, by the status of the customer involved. 
The related problem of self-inflicted injury is addressed in recital (28) below. 
(15) The Council confirms this view and the findings on the export price set out in 
recitals (24) to (28) of the provisional Regulation. 
3. Comparison 
(16) The Chinese producer referred to in recital (31) of the provisional Regulation claimed 
that the adjustment made to normal value to take account of differences in physical 
characteristics of the uncertified diskettes sold for export did not reflect the full value 
of these differences. 
The Commission has examined this question. It has noted that the purchaser runs a 
certain risk in purchasing uncertified diskettes, and consequently, an adjustment should 
be made to reflect the differences in physical characteristics. However, this producer 
was unable to provide new evidence substantiating the additional claim. In those 
circumstances, the Commission considers that the adjustment provisionally made 
reflected fully the differences established in physical characteristics. Consequently, the 
claim for an additional adjustment was rejected. 
(17) Several other Chinese producers and one Taiwanese producer claimed that, in the 
comparison of normal value on the Taiwanese market with export price, no adjustment 
had been made to reflect the differences in direct selling expenses for sales to OEM 
customers on the export market and for sales to non-OEM customers on the domestic 
market. In its examination of the situation of the Taiwanese producer which made 
domestic sales in sufficient quantities to permit a proper comparison, the Commission 
found no indication that there was any difference in selling expenses incurred and profit 
realized in different channels of sale. No adjustment in this respect, therefore, could 
be made. 
4. Dumping margins 
(18) On the basis of the modifications made to the calculations of normal value and export 
price, the definitive dumping margins calculated by the Commission, expressed as a 
percentage of the CIF value, established in accordance with the provisions of Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 1224/80 of 28 May 1980 on the valuation of goods for customs 
purposes(4), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 4046/89(5), for each of the 
companies concerned, are as follows: 
Japan Memorex Telex Japan Ltd. 
Hitachi-Maxell Ltd. 
TDK Ltd. 
Sony Ltd. 
Taiwan CIS Technology Ltd. 
Megamedia Ltd. 49% China 
32.8% 
44.8% 
60.1% 
19.8% 
32.7% Hanny Magnetics 
(Zuhai)Ltd. 35.6% 
Other companies 39.4% 
(19) As far as non-cooperating producers are concerned, no comments on the conclusions 
reached by the Commission in recital (37) of the provisional Regulation were received. 
In those circumstances, the Council confirms these findings and the dumping margin 
for non-cooperating producers is set at the level of the highest dumping margins for 
each country. 
F COMMUNITY INDUSTRY 
(20) Producers in Japan and China challenged the Commission's finding in recitals (39) to 
(47) of the provisional Regulation that the five complainant producers represented a 
major proportion of Community production of 3.5" microdisks, and could therefore be 
considered to be the Community industry under Article 4(5) of the Basic Regulation. 
They argued, in particular, that the output of the producers in the Community found to 
be related to the producers in the countries subject to the proceeding should have been 
(4) OJ No L 134, 31.5.1980, p. 1. 
(5) OJ No L 388, 30.12.1989, p. 24. 
10 
included in total Community production when calculating whether the output of the five 
complainant producers constituted a major proportion of total Community production 
of the product in question. 
In this context, the Commission recalls that it is the consistent practice of the 
Community institutions to accept that total Community production can only be 
considered to mean the output of those Community producers which are not excluded 
for the reasons given in first indent of the said Article 4(5). The output of producers 
which are excluded from the definition of "Community industry" because of their 
relationship to exporters should, therefore, be excluded a fortiori from total Community 
production, when determining whether the Community industry represents a major 
proportion of such production. 
The rationale of Article 4(5) of the Basic Regulation is indeed that, for the 
determination of injury, it should not be open to producers found to be related to 
exporters to seek relief from unfair trading practices, since they may, through this 
relationship, have participated in or benefited from injurious dumping. It is only by 
excluding such producers, where appropriate, that the Community institutions can obtain 
an undistorted and objective view of the effects of the dumped imports. If this was not 
the case, then, in addition to contributing to the injury, producers related to exporters 
or otherwise benefiting from dumping would be in a position to hinder - or even 
block - the attempts of complainant Community producers to seek legitimate relief 
against the injury caused by dumped imports. 
The Commission, therefore, maintains its findings at recitals (39) to (47) of the 
provisional Regulation, that producers in the Community related to producers in Japan 
should be excluded from "the Community industry" and that, on this basis, production 
of 3.5" microdisks by the complainant producers represented around 77% of total 
Community production during the investigation period. \ 
11 
(21) The Council confirms these findings. 
G. INJURY 
1 • Cumulation of the effects of the dumped imports 
(22) Some Japanese producers contested the Commission's findings on cumulation at recitals 
(50) to (52) of the provisional Regulation. However, no new arguments or facts were 
presented. The Council confirms the aforementioned Commission findings. 
2. Prices of dumped imports 
(23) One Japanese producer and producers in China queried the basis for the Commission's 
statement at recital (55) of the provisional Regulation that the prices of imported 3.5" 
microdisks had undergone, in many cases, a decrease of more than 75% between 1988 
and the investigation period. 
The Commission has reviewed the information available to it in respect of export price 
trends since 1988. Prices declined substantially, varying by company and by product 
type, by between 23% and 79%. 
Furthermore, by comparing the prices realized at the beginning and at the end of the 
investigation period, price declines of 13% on average for un branded 3.5" microdisks 
and 31% for branded 3.5" microdisks were found over this period. 
(24) One Japanese producer claimed that in establishing price undercutting, the Commission 
should have taken account of the fact that its sales to an exclusive distributor on the 
French market by its German subsidiary were made at a different level of trade to that 
of the relevant Community industry sales. 
Following the claim from the Japanese producer concerned, the Commission reviewed 
the undercutting calculations for this producer. 
12 
The producer provided no evidence, however, to show that the tasks or activities of the 
distributor in France were any different from those of other distributors in the 
Community. In those circumstances, the Commission has, for this producer, established 
prices to distributors and compared them with prices for sales to distributors by the 
Community industry. In addition, prices to other categories of customer were compared 
at the same level. 
The result of the revised comparison of prices reveals an undercutting margin still 
within the range mentioned in recital (55) of the provisional Regulation. 
(25) The Council confirms these findings, and those in recital (55) of the provisional 
Regulation. 
3. Situation of the Community industry 
(26) As no new arguments or information were put forward, the Council confirms the 
Commission's findings as set out in recitals (56) to (61) of the provisional Regulation 
on the situation of the Community industry, and those relating to injury at recital (62). 
H. CAUSATION 
(27) Two Japanese producers, on the grounds that the market share held by imports from 
Japan had fallen considerably over the period concerned, disputed the Commission's 
conclusion contained in recital (66) of the provisional Regulation, that the effects of 
imports from third countries not covered by the proceeding did not alter the fact that 
the dumped imports from Japan, Taiwan and China, taken in isolation, caused material 
injury to the Community industry. Those producers therefore requested that the effect 
of imports from Japan should not be examined cumulatively with those from the other 
countries concerned. 
13 
The Commission recalls that it has been the consistent practice of the Community 
institutions, upheld by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, to examine 
the effect of the dumped imports as a whole, except where the level of dumped imports 
from a given country is negligible or otherwise does not contribute to injury. 
The Commission, in recital (54) of the provisional Regulation, acknowledged that 
imports into the Community of 3.5" microdisks from Japan had fallen between 1988 
and the investigation period. 
However, at 22%, their market share remained substantial, and was almost double that 
of the Community industry. 
Furthermore, the dumped imports from the three countries concerned, viewed 
cumulatively, attained a market share of 33.8% in the investigation period. That, 
together with the substantial price depression arising from the price undercutting by 
those dumped imports, could not have failed to have a marked negative effect on the 
situation of the Community industry, which had only recently been established. 
The Commission, therefore, maintains the findings at the said recital (66). 
(28) Two Japanese producers questioned the Commission's recognition of under-utilization 
of capacity as an indicator of material injury at recital (57) of the provisional 
Regulation, when complainant Community producers were, at the same time, importing 
sometimes substantial quantities of the product concerned from the countries covered 
by the proceeding. Hence the Community industry was inflicting injury upon itself. 
As pointed out in recital (43) of the provisional Regulation, imports of 3.5" microdisks 
by all but one of the Community producers represented only a small proportion of their 
sales in the investigation period. Therefore, the arguments presented by the Japanese 
are not supported by the facts. 
14 
It should be noted that the complainant producer which had a substantial level of 
imports also had a high capacity-utilization rate. No contradiction thus exists between 
the Commission's recognition of general capacity under-utilization and imports of 3.5" 
microdisks. The imports were a consequence of the fact that, due to the effects of 
low-priced imports from the countries concerned, the producer in question had been 
unable to generate the investment funds needed to develop a production capacity 
sufficient to meet demand in the Community. At the time, that producer had no other 
reasonable choice but to act in self-defense, and did not therefore inflict injury on itself. 
(29) The Council confirms the Commission's findings regarding causality and the injury 
attributable to other factors, and those contained in recitals (64) to (74) of the 
provisional Regulation. 
L COMMUNITY INTEREST 
(30) Two Japanese producers argued that the imposition of duties at a time of shortage of 
supply on the Community market, with the Community industry unable to meet 
demand, would only serve to raise costs and prices, to the detriment of software firms 
and consumers. 
In recital (78) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission recognized that production 
by the Community industry is currently insufficient to meet the surge in demand that 
has recently occurred in the Community market. Nevertheless, the Community 
industry, in an appropriate response to this development, has since the end of the 
investigation period acted to increase production capacity and, given the respite afforded 
by anti-dumping duties from the pricing pressures caused by unfairly traded imports, 
can be expected to continue to invest in this sector. Moreover, new Community 
producers, in à further response to the market, have set up production facilities in the 
Community. The Commission considers it essential that the complainant Community 
industry and these new independent Community producers be given the opportunity 
to attain, in conditions of fair trade undistorted by dumping, the levels of profitability 
needed for economic viability. The Commission therefore maintains its findings on 
Community interest as set out in recitals (75) to (80) of the provisional Regulation. 
15 
(31) One importer argued that the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty would only 
increase costs to users, without in any way helping the Community industry, as 
producers and exporters in countries not subject to the duty would take advantage of 
the higher prices engendered to increase market shares at prices below those needed by 
the Community industry. 
The Commission notes, however, that the purpose of the present proceeding is to 
address problems arising from the dumped imports from the countries concerned. It is 
not the purpose of anti-dumping measures to protect the Community industry from the 
normal operation of fair competition in circumstances in which there should be 
unhindered market access. 
(32) As no other arguments were presented, the Council confirms these conclusions and 
those set out in recitals (75) to (85) of the provisional Regulation. 
DUTY 
(33) In the provisional determination, the Commission established the amount of duty 
necessary to remove the injury on the basis of full costs of production plus a 10% 
return on sales. The complainant argued that the use of a profit margin of 10% is 
insufficient to meet the needs of the Community industry for investment to increase 
production capacity, marketing expenditure, and research and development of new 
products, and that the Commission should use a profit margin of between 12% and 16% 
of turnover to calculate the increase in prices necessary to remove the injury. 
(34) The Commission maintains its argument that, in respect of the relevant costs in the 
period covered by the investigation, it would have been unrealistic to expect profit 
margins for the Community industry above the 10% considered to be the minimum 
required to ensure the viability of that industry. 
16 
(35) One Japanese producer argued that, because of its calculation of the duty required to 
remove injury, the Commission had attributed to the producers in the countries 
concerned not only that part of any injury suffered by the Community industry caused 
by imports from those countries but also the injury caused by other factors, notably by 
imports from countries not subject to the proceeding. 
The Commission rejects the contention. 
In its overall assessment of the situation, the Commission examined all potential causes 
of injury, to ensure that factors other than imports from Japan, Taiwan and China were 
not in fact responsible for the injury suffered by the Community industry. This 
examination covered, as is pointed out in recital (66) of the provisional Regulation, 
imports from third countries not included in the proceeding, and it was found that, even 
if some of the injury could have been attributed to those imports, this did not alter the 
fact that the injury caused by the dumped imports from the countries subject to the 
proceeding was, taken in isolation, material. 
Furthermore, in line with consistent Community practice, the Commission has acted to 
remove the injury established by imposing duties only up to the limit of the dumping 
margins or the margins of underselling individually determined for producers found to 
be dumping. It is clear, therefore, that by adopting this approach, the Commission does 
not remove more injury than that caused by each exporter by its dumped imports, and 
does not. therefore, attribute to the dumped imports any element of injury that may have 
been caused by other factors. 
(36) The difference between the prices for the Community industry, established in 
accordance with the method outlined in recital (81) of the provisional Regulation, and 
the prices of the dumped imports used to establish undercutting, as outlined in 
recital (55) of the provisional Regulation, as adjusted by recital (27) of this Regulation, 
expressed on a weighted average basis and as a percentage of the free-at-Community-
frontier price, established in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EEC) 
No 1224/80, weie above the dumping margins found for all the producers in Taiwan 
and China, Mid ranged from 6.1% to 40.9% for producers in Japan. 
17 
As far as non-cooperating producers are concerned, the Commission considers that the 
result of its investigation forms the most appropriate basis for the establishment of the 
level of duty, and thus concludes that the highest level of duty determined for a 
producer in the same country should be applied to the non-cooperating producers. 
(37) The Council confirms the above findings of the Commission and the determination of 
the duty to be applied, as described in recitals (81) to (85) of the provisional 
Regulation. 
K. UNDERTAKINGS 
(38) Several producers have suggested offering undertakings, and have been informed that 
the Commission is unable to accept undertakings in this case. The Commission 
considers that the degree of non-cooperation in the proceeding, the rapidity of 
technological change in the product, and the volatility of prices, would render the 
observance of undertakings exceedingly difficult to monitor. In addition, the high level 
of mobility of the production facilities in the industry would be unlikely to contribute 
to the restoration of fair competitive conditions in the market. 
(39) Given the above, the Council concludes that measures should be imposed in the form 
of definitive anti-dumping duties. 
L. COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTIES 
(40) In view of the dumping margins established, the injury caused to the Community 
industry, and the latter's precarious financial situation, the Council considers it 
necessary that the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty for all 
companies should be collected definitively. Where the provisional duty exceeds the 
duty rate definitively imposed, the amount collected should not exceed that of the 
definitive anti-dumping duty, 
18 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
Article 1 
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of 3.5" microdisks used 
to record and store encoded digital computer information falling within CN Code 
ex 8523 20 90 (Taric Code 8523 20 90*10), and originating in Japan, Taiwan and the 
People's Republic of China. 
2. The rate of duty applicable to the net free-at-Community-frontier price, not cleared 
through customs, shall be as follows. 
(a) 40.9% in respect of the products specified in paragraph 1 originating in Japan 
(Taric additional code: 8708), with the exception of imports which are manufactured 
and sold for export to the Community by the following companies, which shall be 
subject to the rates of duty mentioned hereunder: 
Memorex Telex Japan Ltd.: 6.1% (Taric additional code : 8705) 
Hitachi-Maxell : 20.6% (Taric additional code : 8706) 
- TDK: 26.7% (Taric additional code : 8707) 
(b) 32.7% in respect of the products specified in paragraph 1 originating in Taiwan 
(Taric additional code: 8710), with the exception of imports which are manufactured 
and sold for export to the Community by the following company, which shall be 
subject to the rate of duty mentioned hereunder: 
CIS Technology: 19.8% (Taric additional code: 8709) 
19 
(c) 39.4% in respect of the products specified at paragraph 1 originating in China 
(Taric additional code: 8712), with the exception of imports which are manufactured 
and sold for export by the following company, which shall be subject to the rate of 
duty mentioned hereunder: 
Hanny Magnetics: 35.6% (Taric additional code: 8711) 
3. The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply to the said duty. 
Article 2 
1. The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty under 
Regulation (EEC) No 920/93 in respect of 3.5" microdisks shall be definitively 
collected. Where the provisional duty exceeds the duty rate definitively imposed, the 
amount collected should not exceed that of the definitive duty. 
2. Amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of duty shall be released. 
Article 3 
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 
20 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(93) 448 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 08 
Catalogue numtjer : CB-CO-93-491-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-59463-2 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
1^2985 Luxembourg j 
21