COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
COM(95) 69 final 
Brussels, 02.03.1995 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL RFfiULATION (EC) 
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of colour television receivers 
originating in Malaysia, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, 
Singapore and Thailand and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed 
(presented by the Commission) 
y< 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
1. Commission Regulation (EC) No 23 76/941 imposed a provisional anti-dumping 
duty on imports of colour television receivers originating in Malaysia, the 
People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand. 
2. The expiry date for the provisional duty was 2 February 1995. Council 
Regulation (EC) No 140/952 extended this duty for a period of two months 
expiring on 3 April 1995. 
3. With regard to normal value, following publication of the provisional measures 
and the subsequent disclosure of the Commission's dumping calculations, a large 
majority of the exporters concerned requested, and were granted, a hearing and 
made their views known in writing, as did other interested parties. 
4. Several exporters made submissions on the calculation of the dumping margins, 
which were accepted or rejected on their merits and are discussed in more detail 
in the attached proposed Regulation. Consequently, the dumping margins of 
some exporters were modified. 
5. As far as other points in the provisional measures are concerned, particularly 
with regard to injury and causality, various arguments were put forward by 
exporters and other interested parties., With regard to the calculation of the 
definitive duty, the Commission has taken into consideration the contribution of 
the dumped imports to the poor economic situation of the Community industry. 
These arguments are discussed in detail in the attached proposed Regulation. 
6. The Commission originally published a notice of initiation3 in respect of the 
proceeding which included exports of colour television receivers originating in 
Turkey. As far as these exports are concerned, they were found to be 
insignificant and therefore it is proposed to confirm their exclusion from the 
scope of the measures and to terminate the proceeding with regard to Turkey. 
lOJL255, 1.10.94, p. 50. 
2 OJL 21, 28.1.95, p. 1. 
3OJC307,25.11.92,p.4 
7. In iK^or^ance with Aitiâs 12 of Çmml ^ejulation pi€) M® %mM, the 
ÇoRimisskm is propping #iat definitive antidumping me&surss jfeouW !œ 
imposed oa imports of mkw M&mm mmvws originating m Malaysia, the 
$§&^&$Qûm* thel^pphlic of terea, Siagapoie mû 1M. In mw ofohe 
dumping ma*pns e^tahtisJW aj*d the mtimmm of ih§ kywy mmâ Ihffefey, it 
is considered necessary that amounts secured by way of provisional anti-
imping duties should hi definitively coHeeted to the extent of Ae amount of the 
définitive duty imposed. 
8. The {^pission intend to palish the decision to tecmifjaie the proceeding in 
respect of Turkey at the same time as the Council Reptation in 
yf<5--
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 
of 
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of colour television receivers 
originating in Malaysia, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, 
Singapore and Thailand and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 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 Community4, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 522/945, and in 
particular Article 12 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consultation of the 
Advisory Committee, 
Whereas : 
A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES 
(1) The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 2376/946, hereinafter referred to as 
the "provisional Regulation", imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on 
imports into the Community of colour television receivers (hereinafter referred 
to as "CTVs") originating in Malaysia, the People's Republic of China, the 
Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand. 
4 O.J. No L 209,02.08.1988, p. 1. 
5 O.J. No L 66,10.03.1994, p. 10. 
6O.J.NoL255,1.10.94, p. 50. 
By Regulation (EC) Wfa 14©»* tfie €&ua©E extended* the* validity of this: duty 
for a period of tw^months^expiring on••$ April 1995; 
B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 
(2) Following; the imposition of the provisional' antidumping: èaty; several interested 
parties submitted comments in writing, requested, and were granted, hearings. 
(3 ) Upon request; parties were informed of the essential fmm and considerations on 
the basis of which it wau intended to* reeommefld lie impositions oi 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 
subsequenf to the disclosure 
(4) 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. 
e. m&met mwm cmmrnrnMA-mm Mm LIKE mmmm 
(5) As no new evidence nor arguments have been presented regarding the product 
under consideration and the like product, the findings set out in recitals 8 to 18 
of the provisional Regulation are confirmed 
B, COMMUNITY INPUSTRY 
(6) After the imposition of the provisional duties, several exporters questioned the 
standing of the complainants^ on the grounds that the criteria used to define the 
producers' "main core of business* (recital 23 of the provisional Regulation) 
were too weak, particularly in the light of the fact that imports by the 
Community industry from the countries concerned accounted for up to 25% of 
their Community production sold in the Community. 
7 OJ. NoL 21,28.1.95, p. 1. 
It should be recalled in this respect that Article 4(5) of Regulation (EEC) 
No 2423/88 (hereinafter referred to as the "Basic Regulation") leaves a margin 
of discretion to the Community institutions to interpret the term Community 
industry as referring to the rest of Community producers, where the other 
producers are related to the exporters concerned or are themselves importers of 
the product concerned. 
In this particular case sufficient evidence has been provided to show that the 
purpose of the imports of the Community producers from countries concerned in 
the proceeding was to stay on the market with as full a range of models as 
possible or even to protect market niches which would have disappeared without 
sales of the models in question. Account was also taken of the fact that the 
commercial decision to import CTVs from the countries concerned had been 
taken by the producers in question at least partly as a consequence of the proven 
injurious dumping and that the prices of these imports did not undercut already 
depressed prices on the Community market. 
In addition one exporter argued that, due to the allegedly insufficient standing of 
the complainants, injury had been assessed on too narrow a basis. The standing 
of the complainants has been the subject of an in-depth examination by the 
Commission which was referred to, in detail, in the provisional Regulation. The 
exporter argued that other non-complaining Community producers should have 
been taken into account when assessing whether the complainants comprised a 
major proportion of the Community industry. This factor has indeed been taken 
into account in the said examination and the argument of the exporter in this 
regard is therefore rejected as being unfounded. 
(7) In these circumstances, it is considered that the criteria referred to in the 
provisional Regulation for the purpose of applying Article 4(5) of the Basic 
Regulation were applied appropriately and reasonably and consequently, the 
findings set out in recitals 19 to 23 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 
The standing of the complainants thus confirmed, the allegations made in respect 
of the scope of the injury investigation are therefore rejected. 
E. ORIGIN 
The three Chinese exporters, specifically referred to in recifcal 33 and 34 of the 
provisional Regulation, which disputed the Commission's origin findings as 
established in recitals 33 to 38 of the same Regulation, claimed that the origin 
had not been determined for the People's Republic of China in accordance witn 
the relevant customs provisions in force and that the approach followed in the 
case of the People's Republic of China was inconsistent with the me adopted in 
respect of the other exporting countries concerned. 
As already indicated in the provisional Regulation, recitals 32 and 37, the 
investigation has been based, inter alia, on the working assumption that CTVs 
have the origin declared when imported into the Community. 
The Chinese exporters who disputed the Commission's conclusions arising out of 
the origin examination had previously supplied importers in the Community with 
information that indicated that the CTVs imported into the EC during the 
investigation period had indeed originated in China. 
The Commission continued to examine the issue of origin in relation to Chinese 
exports and took into account the arguments made by Chinese exporters 
following publication of the provisional Regulation. However no new evidence 
was forwarded by the Chinese exporters concerned which would lead the 
Commission to consider that a different conclusion would be appropriate for the 
definitive determination. It was decided that there are insufficient grounds to 
depart torn the origin of these exports as declared to the Customs authorities of 
the Member States during the period of investigation. 
One Korean producer alleged that the approach taken by the Community to the 
origin of CTVs in this proceeding would favour non-cooperating subsidiaries of 
Japanese companies located in Malaysia and Singapore, in that these subsidiaries 
might in the future declare their CTVs assembled in Malaysia and Singapore to 
be of Japanese origin and, in this way, avoid the residual duties established for 
those latter countries. This would be as a direct result of Japanese exporters 
being excluded from the proceeding on the grounds of insufficient imports into 
the Community of Japanese origin CTVs. 
In this respect it has to be pointed out that the exporter concerned did not submit 
any evidence that the CTVs assembled in Malaysia and Singapore by subsidiaries 
of Japanese companies actually originated in Japan. A change in the origin 
determination is therefore not warranted. It should be recalled that only in those 
cases where data verified by the investigators at on-site verification visits 
conducted as part of a normal anti-dumping investigation proved that 
declarations were incorrect, was a departure made from the origin as declared by 
importers based on information received from their suppliers. With regard to the 
possibility that in the future these subsidiaries of Japanese companies located in 
Malaysia and Singapore will declare their CTVs exported to the Community to 
be of Japanese origin, the normal customs control against false declaration will 
take place. Should the declared Japanese origin turn out to be true and all other 
conditions for initiating an anti-dumping proceeding against CTVs of Japanese 
origin be fulfilled, a proceeding may be initiated. 
(10) Since all above claims have been rejected, the findings set out in recitals 24 to 41 
of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 
F. DUMPING 
(i) Normal value 
(a) General 
(11) One Malaysian and one Thai exporter continued to claim that the Commission 
should have based normal values on sales to third countries after making 
adjustments for "cost differences". Informed of the Commission's position that 
the application of the methodology in question would require adjustments which 
risked committing serious errors due to a lack of precise comparable data, these 
exporters argued that the constructed values involved subjective choices as to 
the establishment of the amounts for both S.G. & A. and profit. The exporters 
concerned stressed that the constructed values led to a much more unfavourable 
result than the method based on sales to third countries and that, where there 
was a choice between two alternative methods, the method leading to a lower 
dumping margin should be preferred. 
€ 
After extensive examination of this issue», the Commission: rejects the argujnenti 
that the level of S M M A, and profit were subjectively determined ft should 
indeed be noted thafc the level of SO. & A and profit used; for the- e^nsteuejted 
value methodology applied to these exporters were nott déterminée oiivs*ib|eetive 
assessments but were based on actual accounting, data. The Commissioniremains 
of the opinion that the use of &<&. & A. and prcrfit established a& indicated in the 
provisional Regulation and applied to producers/exporters in market economy 
countries, is more precise than the suggested methodology based; on third 
country export prices. Accordingly, the use of constructed normal values,, which 
are more accurate and therefore more appropriate m confirmed, 
(12} One Korean exporter objected to the method of calculating the OEM allowance 
in relation to the construction of normal values. The exporter concerned argued 
that the OEM allowance should be 30% instead of one third of the profit realized 
on own^brand sales; 
In relation to the level of the OEM allowance, it should be recalled that this 
allowance has been applied in the past on a ease-by-case basis, dependent on the 
facts established in particular proceedings. In the absence of OEM sales on some 
domestic markets, the Commission has, in this case, decided to grant the OEM 
allowance by applying the profit used for constructing normal values as one third 
of the profit realized on own-brand sales. This approach is in line with previous 
practice and has not been objected to by any other exporter in this proceeding. 
The claim by the exporter is therefore rejected and recitals 51 and 52 of the 
provisional Regulation are confirmed. 
(b) Republic of Korea 
(13) One Korean exporter claimed that its normal values should be reduced because 
the Commission had based the constructed values on the expenses incurred and 
the profit realized on the sales of products in the same business sector and not 
solely on sales of the like product. The Commission had originally based its 
calculations on sales in the same business sector because it was not satisfied that 
there were sufficient representative sales of the like product sold profitably on 
the domestic market. The exporter concerned was able satisfactorily to 
demonstrate that its sales of the like product on the domestic market were both 
profitable and made in sufficient quantities. Accordingly, the exporter's normal 
values were revised. 
(14) One Korean exporter continued to claim that an OEM allowance should be 
granted on comparable models' normal values for two of its models exported to 
the Community. However, after requesting further documentation relating to 
these particular sales, it was apparent that these models were own-brand sales 
and therefore the granting of an OEM allowance for normal value calculations 
was not justified in these circumstances. 
(15) The findings set out in recitals 54 to 56 are confirmed. 
(16) One Turkish exporter of Korean origin sets, for which a dumping margin was 
established for the purposes of the provisional Regulation, had its normal values 
revised. This arose because of changes to the normal value of comparable sets 
manufactured and sold on the Korean market and upon which the exporter's 
margin was based. As a consequence of these changes it was determined that no 
dumping margin was applicable to this producer's exports of own-assembled 
Korean origin sets. 
(c) Singapore 
(17) In the absence of any new arguments, the findings laid down in recital 58 are 
confirmed. 
(d) Thailand 
(18) In the absence of any new arguments, the findings laid down in recitals 59 to 64 
of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 
(e) Malaysia 
(19) One Malaysian exporter objected to the amount of an adjustment made for 
financing costs which involved an interest-free loan from its parent company. 
This objection was based on the premise that the benefits gained from the loan in 
constructing normal value had been overestimated. After re-examining the 
method of calculation and the amount of costs allocated to the like product, the 
effects of the change to the exporter's normal value was adjusted to take account 
of its objection. The findings set out in recitals 65 to 67 of the provisional 
Regulation are confirmed. 
(f) People's Republic of China 
(20) As far as the choice of the market economy country used for reference purposes 
as set out in Article 2 (5) of the Basic Regulation is concerned, one exporter, 
after having expressed in the course of the investigation its preference for the 
country "with the lowest normal value", indicated that it now considered Korea 
more appropriate than Singapore. However, neither the alleged greater 
similarity of models nor the assumption that the comparison would be easier if 
Korea was chosen were supported by substantiated evidence. This claim was 
therefore rejected. 
(21) Another exporter continued to express its preference for normal values based on 
domestic prices in the market economy country used for reference purposes as 
set out in Article 2 (5) of the Basic Regulation. In this respect, reference should 
be made to the fact that such a methodology would require numerous, and 
possibly inaccurate adjustments, a situation which also led the Commission to 
establish constructed normal values for the exporters themselves in the market 
economy countries concerned. 
(22) The choice of Singapore as the market economy country used for reference 
purposes as set out in Article 2 (5) of the Basic Regulation for the establishment 
of normal value for the People's Republic of China is therefore confirmed. 
(ii) Export price 
(a) Market economy countries / General 
(23) The findings set out in recitals 71 to 73 of the provisional Regulation are 
confirmed. 
(b) Market economy countries /Related importers 
(24) A Korean exporter reiterated that all exports to his related importer in the 
Community should be taken into account for export price calculations. This 
request cannot be acceded to, since, the exports concerned were not imported 
into the Community, but held under bond, until a sale to an independent 
customer in, or outside, the Community was made. Only those exports that were 
released for free circulation in the Community during the period of investigation 
were taken into account. 
Recitals 74 to 76 of the provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed. 
(c) People's Republic of China 
(25) All Chinese exporters reiterated their claims to receive individual treatment and 
alleged that the Commission did not sufficiently motivate the refusal of such 
treatment in the provisional Regulation. 
10 
The Commission has repeatedly stated, in extenso, its reasoning for not allowing 
individual treatment of companies in the People's Republic of China. In the 
provisional Regulation, reference was made in particular to the difficulty of 
establishing whether a company enjoys real and permanent independence where 
it merely appears to enjoy a degree of independence at a certain point in time. 
No Chinese exporter supplied sufficient evidence to warrant a different 
conclusion to be drawn/Although, some exporters were able to show that they 
enjoyed a degree of independence from the state in that they were not wholly 
controlled state organizations, this freedom can only be seen as conferring at 
most a quasi-autonomous status within an economic and political system that 
still retains a large degree of centralized control and which clearly does not 
correspond to that which pertains in a market economy country. 
It is considered that the reasons for not allowing individual treatment in this case 
are sufficiently explained. The findings set out in recitals 78 to 81 of the 
provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed. 
(iii) Comparison 
(26) Several exporters disputed the preliminary determination in so far as it rejected 
the allowances claimed under Article 2(10)(c) of the Basic Regulation in respect 
of OEM sales. After due consideration, the Commission accepted that those 
direct selling expenses claimed by exporters and duly substantiated should be 
deducted in full, as the expenses to which they relate formed part of expenses 
included in the construction of normal value for the OEM models. 
(27) Although the difference in prices for sales made in different quantities was 
already taken into account by the acceptance of a volume rebate granted by the 
exporter concerned in the calculation of normal value, one Korean exporter 
continued to claim an allowance for sales made in different quantities and at 
different commercial stages. At the request of the Commission the exporter 
produced further evidence to support its claim. However, the evidence 
forwarded did not justify making the additional allowances claimed . 
11 
(28) All producers concerned reiterated their claims that certain commissions paid to 
companies belonging to the same group should not be treated, as indicated in 
recital 86 of the provisional Regulation, as expenses under Article 2 (10) (c) (v) 
of the Basic Regulation. Following the imposition of provisional duties, the 
producers concerned provided sufficient evidence that the commissions in 
question related partly to payments which had no bearing on the sales under 
consideration. Accordingly, the relevant adjustments were reduced to the 
amount corresponding to the actual sales commissions. 
(29) Two Korean exporters objected to the Commission reducing the allowance 
claimed in respect of normal value for the cost of credit granted, by the costs 
relating to the financing of value added tax (VAT) and special excise tax 
portions of the net invoiced amount. They argued that the taxes charged on the 
invoices were directly related to the sales under consideration and that they were 
demonstrably part of the costs of credit relating to the sales. 
After due consideration, the Commission accepted that the costs of credit 
relating to special excise tax did form part of legitimate costs relating to sales 
and thus could form part of the allowance claimed, after taking into account the 
legal deadline for rendering the monies due to the Korean tax authorities. 
However, in the case of VAT, their arguments were rejected. No direct link 
between the (net) costs of VAT payable with the sales concerned could be 
established since the amount of VAT charged on domestic sales is not 
accountable in full to the Korean tax authorities, such VAT is offset against 
VAT charged on the purchases of the exporters concerned and only the net 
amount is payable, (if any). Any cost of credit relating to the exporters' VAT 
accounting system is a general overhead expense and cannot be identified 
separately as a selling expense for CTVs. The credit adjustments of the 
producers concerned were revised accordingly. 
(30) Several Chinese exporters claimed that an adjustment to normal value should be 
granted for differences "in economic levels" existing between the People's 
Republic of China and the market economy country used for reference purposes 
as set out in Article 2 (5) of the Basic Regulation. In the absence of any 
provision in the Basic Regulation in this respect, no such adjustment was 
granted. 
12 
(iv) Dumping margins 
(a) Co-operating Exporters 
(31) Account being taken of comments received from interested parties where 
appropriate, the dumping margins thus established are as follows: 
Malaysia: -Makonka: 2.3% 
-Orion: 13.5% 
- Technol Silver: 25.1% 
- Thai companies assembling CTVs of Malaysian origin: 
- GoldStar Mitr: 19.6% 
- World Electric: 17.3% 
Thailand: - Samsung: 
- Teletech: 
- Thomson: 29.7% 
33.6% 
14.7% 
Singapore: - Hitachi: 
- Funai: 
- Philips: 
- Sanyo: 
- Thomson: 16.3% 
0% 
24.6% 
14.4% 
13.3% 
Korea: -Daewoo: 17.9% 
-GoldStar: 13.4% 
-Samsung: 13.7% 
- Turkish companies assembling CTVs of Korean origin: 
- Profilo: 0% 
- Bekoteknik: 0% 
People's Republic of China: 25.6% 
13 
(b) Non-cooperating Exporters 
(32) Several Chinese exporters disputed the methodology used for the establishment 
of the weighted average dumping margin for the People's Republic of China in 
the provisional Regulation. One exporter claimed in particular that the weighted 
average dumping margin of the co-operating companies should be used for all 
Chinese exporters. 
In the absence of any indication that the dumping margins of the non-
cooperating companies are lower than the maximum margin found at the co­
operating companies, it is considered that this claim should be rejected. Indeed, 
if dumping margins had been lower, the exporters concerned would, in all 
probability, have made themselves known and co-operated. 
(33) Several of the Chinese exporters claimed that the methodology chosen would 
dissuade exporters from co-operating since it did not take account of the 
relatively high level of co-operation reached in the present case. 
It has to be stressed in this respect that, on the contrary, co-operation enables the 
companies to improve the information available to the Commission. In 
particular, it is clear that the larger the percentage of co-operating exporters, the 
smaller the impact of the "highest dumping margin" on the level of the duty 
applicable. Finally, as far as the reasoning is based on the percentage of co­
operation, it is precisely because the reported figures were considered as 
representative that they were used as "facts available". 
(34) In the absence of any further comment, Recitals 95 and 96 of the provisional 
Regulation are therefore confirmed. 
14 
G. INJURY 
(i) Prices of the dumped imports 
(a) Related importers 
(35) Concerning the method of establishing the level of price undercutting in relation 
to sales by related importers to the first independent customers in the 
Community, one exporter objected that the model comparison, as explained in 
recitals 102 and 103 of the provisional Regulation, did not take account of all 
factors affecting selling prices. The exporter claimed that differences in signal 
reception capabilities had an impact on the selling price. In view of the fact that 
no conclusive evidence was supplied by this exporter to support its objection and 
that no other exporter contested the criteria which were uniformally applied for 
determining the comparability of models, the Commission found that there were 
no reasonable grounds to modify the price undercutting calculation. 
(b) Unrelated importers 
(36) For the purposes of the establishment of price undercutting, the price of all 
imports by unrelated importers had been established at the level of the 
Community frontier price plus customs duty and other import costs (15%). 
Given the difficulty of arriving at an amount which took into account all channels 
of sale as well as individual levels of trade for the sales to non-cooperating 
importers, (a large majority) and given the fact that most exporters who sold to 
unrelated importers had a similar mix of customers it was considered reasonable 
to apply a uniform percentage. Accordingly, a further 10% was added for 
additional distribution and marketing costs and profit. 
15 
With regard to this method of establishing price undercutting, representations 
were made that the adjustments to the selling prices of the product concerned 
were inadequate for allowing a correct calculation. One exporter claimed that the 
10% mark-up to cover distribution and marketing costs plus profit was 
inadequate and that a higher adjustment should be applied. It was, however, 
pointed out that its proposals for adjustments were based on a selective sample 
of sales and that, conversely, sales which were made direct to large retail chains 
incurred little or no extra distribution or marketing costs and therefore in these 
circumstances a 10% adjustment would have been excessive. 
Therefore, taking all sales channels into account an amount of 10% was 
considered reasonable for comparison purposes. A general change in the method 
of undercutting was therefore not appropriate. The findings set out in recitals 
102 to 105 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 
(37) After a general re-examination, the weighted average undercutting margins 
expressed as a percentage of the free at Community frontier price were in the 
following ranges: 
- for Malaysia, from 7.50% to 23.40%; 
- for Thailand, from 3.02% to 29.89%; 
- for Singapore, from 0% to 23.68%; 
- for the Republic of Korea, from 38.61% to 54.00%; 
For the People's Republic of China, the weighted average undercutting margin 
expressed as a percentage of the free at Community frontier price was 58.7%. 
(ii) Other injury issues 
(38) Another exporter claimed that the volume of so-called large screen CTVs 
imported from the People's Republic of China was insignificant and should not 
be cumulated with the imports of other countries involved in the proceeding. The 
Commission cannot accept that these imports should not be cumulated. It should 
be noted that the Community market share of Chinese exports of large screen 
CTVs alone was more than 2% of total Community consumption in the 
investigation period and that these imports represented more than ten times the 
imports of large screen Chinese CTVs in 1988. 
16 
(39) One exporter continued to claim that the Community industry had not suffered 
injury in the case of imports of so-called large screen CTVs and that the decrease 
in sales of small screen CTVs could not justify injury causation in the case of 
large screen CTVs. The Commission examined this issue in the provisional 
Regulation and the exporter concerned produced no new evidence to support its 
arguments. Therefore the claim was rejected for the reasons given in the 
provisional Regulation. 
(40) The remaining findings in recitals 97 to 117 of the provisional Regulation are 
therefore confirmed. 
H. CAUSATION 
(i) Effect of the dumped imports 
(41) One Chinese exporter argued that exports of very large screen CTVs from the 
People's Republic of China were either negligible or did not exist and therefore 
could not be causing injury to the Community industry. This claim cannot be 
accepted, as the exports of CTVs from the People's Republic of China which 
form part of the product under consideration and the like product, compete with 
Community production of all CTVs including such large screen CTVs and 
thereby contribute to the overall injurious effects of dumping that has been 
found, 
(ii) Effects of other factors 
(42) One exporter alleged that the Community industry had suffered from self-
inflicted injury or was shielded from the effects of dumping, in that a large 
proportion of its lost sales were merely replaced by Community industry-owned 
production in Austria or from dumped imports by Community producers from 
7 countries involved in the proceeding. 
This allegation cannot be accepted. Only a part of the exports from Austria may 
be linked to the Community industry. No evidence was produced which 
demonstrated that any of the imports from Austria were offered at prices which 
undercut the Community industry's prices. 
17 
As already stated in recital 6 of this Regulation, the purpose of the imports of the 
Community producers from the countries concerned in the proceeding was to 
stay on the market with as full a range of models as possible or even to protect 
market niches which would have disappeared. The producers in question took a 
commercial decision influenced by external factors and based on legitimate self-
interest. Their decision to import from the countries concerned was caused by 
the proven injurious dumping that took place. It should also be recalled that the 
prices of these imports did not undercut the already depressed prices on the 
Community market. 
(43) After re-examination it should be noted that recital 126 of the provisional 
Regulation requires correction to the extent that volumes imported by the 
Community industry from the countries concerned represented 4.5% of the 
market in 1990, while during the period of investigation, this share was 4.1%. 
(iii) Conclusion 
(44) In consideration of the above, the findings set out in recitals 118 to 129, with the 
exception mentioned in recital 43 of this Regulation, are confirmed. 
I. COMMUNITY INTEREST 
(45) One exporter alleged that taking measures would not avoid further de-
localization of Community production since the Community production of CTVs 
would be non-viable for structural reasons. No evidence to support this 
allegation was supplied. 
(46) Several exporters alleged that measures would not be in the interest of 
consumers. This allegation has already been addressed at length in the 
provisional Regulation and in the absence of any further substantiated evidence, 
the findings set out in recitals 130 to 138 of the said Regulation are confirmed. 
18 
J. DETERMINATION IN RESPECT OF TURKEY 
(47) Further analysis of the situation pertaining to exports of Turkish origin CTVs, 
described in recitals 98, 99 and 139 of the provisional Regulation was carried out 
and the conclusion reached is that the facts as set out in the provisional 
determination should be confirmed8. 
K. UNDERTAKINGS 
(48) The Commission has received offers of undertakings from several exporters 
pursuant to Article 10 (2) of the Basic Regulation. These offers have been the 
subject of careful examination, with particular attention being paid to the 
feasibility of monitoring the undertakings proposed. 
The acceptance of undertakings for consumer products has historically been 
exceptional given, inter alia, the complexity of the models, the number of 
different types and the variety and the regularity with which they are upgraded Of 
otherwise modified. All these characteristics lead to virtually insurmountable 
difficulties in monitoring. In the case of CTVs, it is the Commission's opinion 
that these difficulties could not be overcome and that, consequently, such 
measures would not ensure the long term suppression of injurious dumping. Jt 
wp therefore considered, after consultation, that the acceptance of undertakings 
was not appropriate in this particular proceeding and the offers concerned have 
accordingly been rejected. 
L. DUTY 
(49) Diverging views were submitted on the fact that duty calculations were based on 
thé injury elimination level (where appropriate), which was arrived at by using 
pricf undercutting calculations. No new arguments or viewpoints which were 
sufficiently reasoned have been forwarded, therefore a change in the method of 
calculating the Injury elimination level is not justified. 
S See page XX of this Official Journal. 
19 
On this basis, the resulting percentage increases are : 
for the Republic of Korea 
for Malaysia 
for Thailand 
for Singapore 
for the People's Republic of China up to 54.00% 
up to 23.40% 
up to 29.89% 
up to 23.68% 
up to 58.79% 
For the reasons outlined in the provisional Regulation and in recital 25, 32 and 
33 above, a single duty has been established for all producers in the People's 
Republic of China. 
(50) The methodology applied in establishing the duty rates for non-cooperating 
exporters who exported CTVs originating in Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, 
Singapore and Thailand, as set out in recital 145 of the provisional Regulation is 
confirmed. 
(51) Definitive anti-dumping duties, in the form of ad valorem duties, should be 
imposed as follows: 
Rate of duty 
Republic of Korea 
Daewoo 
GoldStar 
Samsung 
Profilo 
Bekoteknik 17.9% 
17.9% 
13.4% 
13.7% 
0 (CTVs assembled in Turkey) 
0 (CTVs assembled in Turkey) 
Malaysia 
Makonka 
Orion 
Technol Silver 
GoldStar Mitr 
World Electric 23.4% 
2.3% 
10.1% 
7.5% 
19.6% (CTVs assembled in Thailand) 
13.5% (CTVs assembled in Thailand) 
20 
M< CQWCTIQN OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTIES 
(2|) In view of tl^e magnitude of the dumping margins found for the majority of 
exporters and the seriousness of the injury caused thereby, it is co^sid§r§d 
necessary tlwt amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dymping fjuty for all 
compass should be definitively collected. Where the provisional duty exceed? 
the ^uty rate datively imposed, the amount collected should pot exceed that 
of the definitive anti-dumping duty, 
WL$ AJWTEP TRIS REGULATION: 
Article 1 
\. ^ déPnJfjy^ antidumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of colciur television 
reçeivfrs; 
with i| disgonaj screen si?e of more than 15,5 cm, whether or not c^mhipfd |n 
tji§ same housing with a radio broadcast receiver and/or a clock, facing wiflim 
ÇN çode$ £x: 8528 IP 52 (Taric code : Ex 8528 10 52*10), $S§9 10 H 85|g 
10 56; P?8 10 58, px 8528 10 62 (Taric code : 8528 10 6? *10) $nd 8528 ÏQ 
6$, originating lr| Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand, Singapore 
Thomson 
Sanyo 
Philips 
Ifl^chi 
Eunaj 
lel^fich 
Thomson 
l^msung 
P$q$$'$JUpHblic of China 23.6% 
2.6% 
4.3% 
2.8% 
0 
0 
29.8% 
29.8% 
3.0% 
12.1% 
25.6% 
21 
with a diagonal screen size of more than 42 cm, whether or not combined in the 
same housing with a radio broadcast receiver and/or a clock, falling within CN 
codes 8528 10 54, 8528 10 56, 8528 10 58, Ex 8528 10 62 (Taric code : 8528 
10 62 *90) and 8528 10 66, originating in 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 : 
Malaysia 
People's Republic of China 
Republic of Korea 
Singapore 
Thailand Rate of 
duty 
23.4% 
25.6% 
17.9% 
23.6% 
29.8% Taric additional 
code 
8801 
8807 
8812 
8816 
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 rate of duty 
mentioned hereunder : 
22 
Rate of Taric 
duty additional 
.:, , . • . • • code 
a) CTVs originating in Malaysia manufactured by: 
- Makonka Electronics SDN BHD, Ehsan, Malaysia 2.3% 8796 
- Orion Electric SDN. BHD, Melaka, Malaysia 10.1% 8797 
- Technol Silver (M) SDN. BHD, Ehsan, Malaysia 7.5% 8798 
- GoldStar Mitr Co. Ltd., Samutsakorn, Thailand 19.6% 8799 
- World Electric (Thailand) Ltd., Chonburi, Thailand 13.5% 88QQ 
b) CTVs originating in the Republic of Korea 
manufactured by: 
- Daewoo Electronics Co. Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea 17.9% 8802 
- GoldStar Co. Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea 13.4% 8803 
- Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea 13.7% 8804 
- Bekoteknik Sanayi A.S., Istanbul, Turkey 0.0% 3805 
- Profile Telra Elektronik Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S., Istanbul, 
Turkey 0.0% $305 
c) CTVs originating in Singapore manufactured by: 
- Funai Electric (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Singapore 0.0% 8808 
- Hitachi Consumer Products (S.) Pte. Ltd., Singapore 0.0% 8808 
- Philips Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore 2.8% 8809 
- Sanyo Electronics (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Singapore 4.3% 8810 
- Thomson Television Singapore Pte. Ltd, Singapore 2.6% 8811 
d) CTVs originating in Thailand manufactured by: 
- Teietech (Thailand) Ltd., Chonburi, Thailand 29.8% 8813 
- Thai Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Chonburi, Thailand 12.1% 8814 
- Thomson Television (Thailand) Co. Ltd., Pathumthani, 
Thailand 1 3.0% | 8815 
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties 
shall apply. 
23 
Article 2 
The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty under Regulation (EC) 
No 2376/94 shall be definitively collected at the duty rate definitively imposed. 
Amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of duty shall be released. 
Article 3 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the 
OfflcialJournal of the European Communities. 
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member 
States. 
Done at Brussels, 
For the Council 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(95) 69 final 
Catalogue number : ÇB-CO-95H3f79-lN«C 
ISBN 92«77«8$|63-7 
OfBct for Official Publications of the European Communities