COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 24.04.1998 
COM(1998) 262 final 
Amended proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) 
imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports into the Community of personal 
fax machines originating in the People's Republic of China, Japan, the Republic of 
Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand 
(presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 189 a (2) 
of the EC-Treaty) 

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
Subject: Anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of personal fax 
machines originating in the People's Republic of China, Japan, 
Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand 
1) Reference is made to the Commission's proposal in Document COM (1998) 193 in 
which the main aspects of this case are described. 
2) Following discussions in the Council, the Commission now proposes to change 
Article 2 of its abovementioned proposal and to adopt a Declaration concerning an 
interim review. 
3) It is hereby proposed that the Council adopts the above-mentioned Regulation 
imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of personal fax machines in its 
attached amended form and that the Declaration of the Commission be inscribed in 
the minutes of the Council. 
A 
Amended proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No ... 
of 1998 
imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports into the Community of personal 
fax machines originating in the People's Republic of China, Japan, the Republic of 
Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on 
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European 
Community,1 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2331/96,2 and in particular Article 9(4) 
thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the 
Advisory Committee, 
Whereas: 
A. PROCEDURE 
(1) Provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed on 1 November 1997 by 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2140/973 ("provisional duty Regulation"). 
Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duties, the Community 
industry, two exporters' associations, a number of producers/exporters and 
importers submitted comments in writing. All parties who so requested were 
granted a hearing. 
(2) The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary 
for the definitive findings, and carried out investigations at the premises of a 
number of importers related to exporters from the countries concerned. The parties 
were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was 
intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty and the 
collection of amounts secured by way of the provisional duty. The parties were also 
granted a reasonable period within which to make representations subsequent to the 
disclosures. 
B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE PRODUCT 
(3) The proceeding covers personal or consumer fax machines (hereinafter called 
"personal fax machines" or "product concerned"). These machines are mainly 
intended for the transmission and reception of paper documents using a telephone 
signal, are often used at home or as a personal desktop set and usually offer 
OJNoL56,6. 3. 1996, p. 1. 
OJNoL317, 6. 12. 1996, p. 1. 
OJL297, 31.10.1997, p. 61 
AQ~ 
additional facilities for communication. In addition to the fax function and 
telephone(s) and/or connection(s) for a telephone set or cordless hand-set, they may 
or may not include a paper feeder and offer one or more of the following functions: 
a cassette or digital answering function, a copy function or an intercom facility. The 
above list is not exhaustive. 
(4) For the purpose of its preliminary findings, the Commission distinguished personal 
or consumer fax machines from professional fax machines by virtue of their weight 
and size. Only fax machines with a weight of 5 kilograms or less and with 
dimensions (width x depth x height) of the main body measuring 470 mm x 450 
mm x 170 mm or less, were considered as personal or consumer fax machines for 
the purposes of the present investigation. For the purpose of assessing the weight 
and dimensions, the paper load and other consumables, as well as any cordless 
hand-sets, were excluded. It was furthermore considered that, at present, fax 
machines using ink-jet or laser printing technologies are aimed only at professional 
use and consequently the machines using these technologies were excluded from 
the application of the provisional anti-dumping duty. 
(5) Personal fax machines are currently classifiable under CN code 8517 21 00. 
1. Characteristics of professional fax machines 
(6) After the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duties, exporters argued that, 
for the product definition, the criteria of weight and size were inappropriate, since 
they would soon lead to the inclusion of professional (office) fax machines. 
(7) However, the investigation has shown that the product definition based on weight 
and size did not, with respect to the investigation period, result in the inclusion of 
professional faxes. Nor did any interested party claim that, between the end of the 
investigation period and December 1997, there were any professional faxes 
available on the Community market which would come within the weight and size 
criteria. As to future developments, no substantiated submission was made by the 
interested parties, nor were any findings established in the investigation which 
would suggest that such professional machines would be introduced into the market 
during the period of application of anti-dumping duties. It is therefore concluded 
that the criteria of weight and size would not, in the near future, lead to the 
inclusion of professional fax machines into the scope of the proceeding. 
Once such professional fax machines are introduced into the Community the 
Commission will, if necessary, submit a proposal to the Council in order to clarify, 
on an individual model by model basis, that these fax machines do not fall under 
the present Regulation. 
2. Printing technologies 
(8) It was further argued that personal fax machines using printing technologies other 
than thermal sensitive, (i.e. machines using thermal-transfer, ink-jet, laser or LED 
printing technologies) should be excluded. 
2.1 Th ermal transfer faxes 
(9) In respect of this argument, the investigation has shown the following: 
Physical and technical characteristics 
(10) In weight and size, and their essential technical features, thermal transfer faxes are 
similar or identical to the thermal paper models. The only difference is the printing 
technology and, resulting therefrom, the paper used. Both thermal transfer and 
thermal paper technologies use heat to transfer information onto paper via a single 
print head. Both print heads are almost identical. It would therefore in principle be 
possible to print thermal paper with a thermal transfer print head. Moreover, the 
electrical components to control the print heads are identical. Essential elements of 
the thermal printing technology are thus the basis for the newer thermal transfer 
technique. In that respect, it was found that thermal transfer is the result of the 
normal product development of thermal paper printing technology. 
Use and consumer perception 
(11) Both product types have, in general, similar designs and visual aspects, and 
handling is simple for both. It has been shown that private users and small/home 
offices use both thermal paper faxes and thermal transfer faxes. 
The differences in printing technology, i.e. the better printing quality of thermal 
transfer faxes, and the advantages of using plain paper, are taken into consideration 
by the consumers only as one aspect among all the technical features available. The 
main objective of the consumer in purchasing a fax machine remains that of 
obtaining a device for his personal use capable of transmitting and receiving fax 
messages. In comparison, the printing technology used for the two product types in 
question is, from the consumer perspective, just an ancillary element. 
Sales channels 
(12) In the investigation period, thermal paper and thermal transfer faxes were, in 
general, sold through the same sales channels. 
Conclusion 
(13) In view of the above, it is considered that thermal paper faxes and thermal transfer 
fax machines form one product. 
2.2 Ink-jet, laser, LED printing technologies and portable faxes 
(14) As to fax machines using ink-jet, laser or LED printing technology, the definitive 
determinations have confirmed that these machines are, in general, substantially 
different to personal faxes in respect of physical and technical characteristics (in 
particular in view of weight/size and performance), that they are designed for 
professional rather than personal use, and that they are, to a significant extent, sold 
through different sales channels. 
(15) In view of these differences, fax machines using ink-jet, laser and LED printing 
technology cannot be considered as like products to the product under 
consideration. 
(16) Some interested parties have further argued that certain new types of portable fax 
machines to be used in connection with mobile telephone sets which were, in the 
investigation period, not yet available on the Community market, would be for 
professional use only and should therefore be excluded from the scope of the 
proceeding. 
(17) On the basis of the information available, it is considered that portable fax 
machines, to be used only in connection with mobile phones, have different 
physical and technical characteristics and will indeed be for professional use only. 
Thus, these machines do not fall within the definition of the product under 
consideration. Once such professional fax machines are introduced into the 
Community the Commission will, if necessary, submit a proposal to the Council in 
order to clarify, on an individual model by model basis, that these fax machines do 
not fall under the present Regulation. 
3. Conclusions 
(18) The provisional findings are confirmed, whereby the product definition shall be 
based on the weight and size criteria, as defined in the provisional duty Regulation. 
(19) Furthermore, it is confirmed that the product concerned, within the meaning of 
Article 1(4) of the Basic Regulation, is thermal paper fax machines and thermal-
transfer fax machines. 
(20) Fax machines using ink-jet, laser or LED printing technology, and portable fax 
machines to be used only in connection with mobile phones shall be excluded from 
the scope of the proceeding. 
C. DUMPING 
1. Level of co-operation 
(21) The level of co-operation by the producers/exporters in this proceeding was 
particularly low in Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan, Japan and China, since the export 
volume to the Community covered by the co-operating producers/exporters 
represented only a small fraction of the total exports from the countries concerned. 
(22) The information provided by the co-operating producers/exporters was verified and 
in the majority of cases was taken into account. Nevertheless, in some cases the 
investigation revealed that part of the information submitted was inaccurate, 
unsubstantiated or insufficient, and consequently it had to be disregarded. In these 
situations the Commission based its definitive findings on the facts available, 
pursuant to Article 18 of the Basic Regulation. 
2. Market economy countries 
2.1 Normal value 
Application of Article 18(1) of the Basic Regulation 
(23) The Singapore producer/exporter contested the Commission's decision to apply 
facts available pursuant to Article 18(1) of the Basic Regulation for the assessment 
of its normal value (see recital (66) of the provisional Regulation). The company 
alleged that the unreported transactions made on the domestic market would be for 
re-export to a third country. Moreover, they claimed that, pursuant to Article 18(4) 
of the Basic Regulation, they should have been informed by the Commission of its 
decision, as no opportunity to provide further explanations was offered. The 
company also disputed the method used by the Commission to establish normal 
value on the basis of the facts available because it considered that the evidence 
collected on-spot (invoices referring to the unreported transactions) should have 
been used instead of the highest reported resale price. 
The investigation revealed that the sales in question were actually made on the 
domestic market and had not been reported as such by the company. Moreover, the 
company was asked to provide evidence supporting that the sales in question were 
not destined for domestic consumption but were actually exported outside 
Singapore. Despite repeated requests, the company did not provide any evidence of 
a subsequent re-export to a third country. At a hearing requested by the company 
subsequent to the verification visit, no satisfactory explanation was provided. 
(24) Concerning the method applied by the Commission to establish normal value with 
regard to these transactions, the facts used to assess the normal value were verified 
and are reasonable in the light of the company's partial non co-operation. The 
provisional findings of the Commission, as set out in recital (66) of the provisional 
Regulation, are therefore confirmed. 
(25) One Korean producer/exporter for which it was decided to apply facts available in 
order to assess its material costs, pursuant to Article 18 of the Basic Regulation (see 
recital (32) of the Provisional Regulation) claimed that this decision was unjustified 
and that the costs of material, as reported in its questionnaire reply, should have 
been used instead. Furthermore, it considered that the method used by the 
Commission to adjust the normal value as a consequence of the partial non co­
operation was flawed. 
(26) The investigation revealed that the material costs reported contained serious 
inconsistencies and could not, therefore, be accepted. No further explanations were 
provided by the company justifying the inconsistencies. With regard to the 
methodology used to establish the facts available, it should be pointed out that a 
conservative approach was applied for the adjustment of material cost by using the 
smallest difference found between the lowest and the average material values. 
Constructed normal value (SG&A) 
(27) The single co-operating Thai producer/exporter, which had no domestic sales, 
contested the method used to establish selling, general and administrative expenses 
(SG&A) and profit when constructing normal value. As stated in recital (77) of the 
provisional Regulation and in accordance with Article 2(6)(c) of the Basic 
Regulation, in the absence of any domestic sales, the Commission decided to 
construct normal value by adding to the company's manufacturing costs the 
weighted average domestic SG&A and profit established on all profitable sales of 
the co-operating exporters in Taiwan. The company claimed that it formed an entity 
with the co-operating Taiwanese producer/exporter and that in view of this 
relationship, SG&A and profit should have been determined on the basis of the first 
method set out in Article 2(6) of the Basic Regulation which would be, according 
to the company, the actual data pertaining to that Taiwanese company. 
Alternatively, should Article 2(6)(c) of the Basic Regulation be applied, the 
company requested that only the SG&A and profit of its related Taiwanese 
company should be used, due to the close links between the two. 
(28) It should be noted that, according to Article 2(6) of the Basic Regulation, SG&A 
expenses and profit margin to be used in a constructed value are those incurred or 
made on the domestic market of the exporting country, i.e. Thailand. However, in 
the absence of information on domestic sales of fax machines in Thailand by the 
company concerned or by any other company, and given that no information was 
available on SG&A expenses and profit of the same general category of products, 
as provided for under Article 2(6)(a) or (b) of the Basic'ReguIation, recourse had to 
be made to Article 2(6)(c), i.e. to base SG&A and profit on any other reasonable 
method. In this respect it was considered that the weighted average SG&A and 
profit incurred or realised by all co-operating exporters on the Taiwanese market 
constituted an appropriate and reasonable basis, since Taiwan is a competitive 
market where a substantial number of firms operate, and constituted the best 
approximation available to the Commission of the conditions of sales on the Thai 
market for the product concerned. 
(29) To use, as suggested by the Thai producer, solely the SG&A and profit of the 
Taiwanese company with whom it is related does not provide a more appropriate 
basis. Indeed, the sales of the Taiwanese related company in isolation represented a 
relatively small fraction of the Taiwanese market. 
Comparison 
Import charges 
(30) In recital (37) of the provisional Regulation the Commission stated that claims for 
allowances for import charges made by Korean producers/exporters were rejected 
since these claims were calculated on an average basis for all products and the 
relationship between the duty paid and the specific model of fax machine 
concerned was not demonstrated. Three Korean producers/exporters claimed that 
this decision was unreasonable. They requested that the Commission services 
should not insist on precise calculations by model, but instead accept an overall 
allocation of duties paid. Furthermore, they claimed that a duty drawback 
adjustment would have to be granted irrespective of the fact whether or not 
domestic models included parts purchased locally. 
(31) It must be stressed that it is a primary requirement for the granting of such an 
allowance that evidence is provided that the parts have not been purchased locally 
6 
since otherwise, no import duty has been paid for such parts. In one case, the 
exporter was able to demonstrate, at least in part, to the satisfaction of the 
Commission that the adjustment was justified. The adjustment was made only to 
the extent that the claim was demonstrated. 
Level of trade 
a) Difference in the functions performed 
(32) The two Japanese and the Singapore producers/exporters, as well as one of the 
Korean companies claimed a domestic allowance for differences in level of trade 
based on Article 2(10)(d) of the Basic Regulation, which has been provisionally 
rejected on the grounds stated in recitals (49) and (71). of the provisional 
Regulation. The companies objected to this position, re-affirming that the 
difference in functions performed domestically and on the export side would 
automatically correspond to a different level of trade and that therefore, an 
adjustment should be granted to allow a proper comparison between normal value 
and export price. In support of their argument, the companies claimed that, when 
constructing the export price pursuant to Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation, it is 
the Institutions' policy to deduct all the costs, incurred by the related importers in 
the Community from the price paid to the first independent customer thus bringing 
the export price to an ex-factory level. Hence, they state that, in order to obtain a 
normal value at a comparable level of trade, the same categories of expenses which 
are incurred on the domestic market, plus a corresponding profit based on that 
obtained on domestic sales should also be excluded, pursuant to Article 2(10)(d) of 
the Basic Regulation. 
(33) This argument cannot be accepted, since it ignores an essential requirement of the 
Basic Regulation in that respect, i.e. that the levels of trade at which the sales are 
performed domestically and on the export market must be defined by the claimant, 
and in particular how this eventual difference affects price comparability. 
(34) It should be recalled that the Institutions' practice to reconstruct the export price by 
deducting the costs incurred by the related importers from the price to unrelated 
importers brings the Community border price to the level of a sale to an 
independent customer. Since, in the present case, the resale price from the related 
importers to the independent customers was found mainly to be at the level of 
prices charged to large retailers and distributors, a deduction of the importers' 
expenses in selling to such customers results in a price which is at a level further up 
in the sales chain. It is consequently to consider the export price after re­
construction equivalent to a price charged to a distributor. 
(35) As to the companies' claim that, because costs were deducted to reconstruct the 
export price a similar deduction should be made to the domestic price, this is 
considered/?er se not warranted. Since in the present case the reconstruction of the 
export price led to a level of trade corresponding to that of a distributor, this 
corresponded to the domestic level of trade. The fact that certain costs may be 
incurred on the domestic market in selling to distributors which are not incurred in 
the similar export level is linked to the specific structure or circumstances of the 
markets under consideration, but could not per se lead to an adjustment when it is 
clear that prices are made to a similar type of customers, i.e. distributors. 
(36) The Japanese and Korean companies claimed that the average domestic price 
cannot be used as a normal value because these sales took place at several different 
levels of trade, only one of which corresponded to the export level. The 
Commission examined the situation in detail but was unable to conclude that the 
exporters' claim was substantiated in that no clear breakdown could be provided by 
the companies either in terms of different costs or prices to demonstrate such 
different levels domestically. What the Commission was able to establish, in 
contrast, was that the prices to all domestic clients were approximately the same to 
the various groups of customers, a factor which suggested that levels of trade were 
not different. In any event, given that domestic prices to all groups of customers 
were similar, and given that one group of these corresponded to the level of trade of 
the export customers (distributors), a level of trade adjustment was not justified. 
Normal value would be the same whether based on sales to one group or to all 
customers. 
(37) In the case of Singapore domestic sales were allegedly all made to a single level of 
trade, i.e. distributors. It must be recalled that normal value was established 
pursuant to Article 18(1) of the Basic Regulation, due to the company's omission to 
report a substantial number of domestic transactions of the product concerned, 
which prevented a more detailed verification of the domestic levels of trade. On the 
basis of the information available to the Commission, no difference was found 
between domestic and export levels of trade. 
(38) For the above reasons, normal value was established on the basis of all domestic 
sales and it was considered that the adjustments for differences in level of trade as 
requested by the Japanese, Singapore and Korean producers/exporters were not 
justified. 
(39) Nevertheless, in circumstances not covered by an adjustment for differences in 
level of trade as defined by Article 2(10)(d)(i) of the Basic Regulation, Article 
2(10)(d)(ii) allows the granting of a special adjustment when certain functions are 
shown to relate to a level of trade other than the one used for the comparison. In the 
present case, the investigation revealed that while the adjustment for differences in 
level of trade could not be granted, the function of advertising should receive a 
special consideration in the light of Article 2(10)(d)(ii). The Commission 
examined, in particular, whether the companies concerned incurred advertising 
expenses to encourage sales at levels of trade other than the one used for the 
comparison. It was found indeed that, for the companies concerned certain 
advertising expenses related, in the present case, to a level of trade other than the 
one used in the comparison. In consequence, it was decided pursuant to Article 
2(10)(d)(ii) of the Basic Regulation, to exclude from the computation of the normal 
value those advertising expenses incurred in domestic sales which relate to a level 
of trade other than distributors. 
b) OEM sales 
(40) One producer/exporter in Taiwan, one in Thailand and two in Korea disputed the 
rejection of their claim for an adjustment for differences in levels of trade based on 
OEM export sales. 
(41) The requested level of trade adjustment could not be granted since no clear price 
pattern could be established between the alleged sales channels. In certain cases, 
prices for OEM models were found to be higher than for own brand sales. In the 
case of one Korean company it was also found that the customer classification 
given was inaccurate and therefore had to be disregarded. In the Taiwanese market, 
OEM domestic sales did not reveal any consistent price difference compared to 
own brand sales. 
(42) In the case of the Thai producer, which had no domestic sales and exported only on 
an OEM basis, normal value was constructed using the average SG&A and profit 
of the Taiwanese market, for which, as explained above, no adjustment of this 
nature was required. Consequently, the claim is rejected. 
Commissions 
(43) The Thai company disputed the fact that a 5% commission had been deducted from 
the price to the first independent purchaser in the Community to account for the 
participation of its Taiwanese related company in these transactions. According to 
them only directly related selling expenses should be deducted and, therefore there 
would be no legal basis to apply this 5% commission which was allegedly not 
actually incurred. 
(44) The investigation confirmed that all exports by the Thai producer/exporter to the 
Community were made via a related company in Taiwan. It has been determined 
that because of the relationship between the two companies, the transfer prices 
charged by the Thai producer to the related Taiwanese company were not on an 
arm's-length basis. It was verified on-spot that there was a mark-up between the 
transfer price and the price paid by the first independent customer in the 
Community. This difference was intended, at least partially, to cover the costs 
incurred by the related company for the activities performed for the purpose of 
exporting the product concerned. As the related Taiwanese company's functions 
can be considered similar to those of a trader, an adjustment of 5% was deducted 
from the price to the first independent customer in the Community. This figure is 
considered reasonable given the degree of the related company's involvement in 
the selling activities of the Thai producer/exporter. 
(45) One company in Singapore claimed an adjustment for commissions paid to related 
companies in Japan. This claim was already rejected on the grounds stated in recital 
(73) of the provisional Regulation. The company objected to this position re­
affirming that the adjustment was needed because of the significant role played by 
two Japanese related companies both in the production and the marketing of the 
product concerned in Singapore. 
(46) The issue was re-examined. The investigation established that the amount claimed 
related in fact to royalties and profit transfers which the two related Japanese 
companies received. Such payments cannot be considered as commission payments 
within the meaning of Article 2(10)(i) of the Basic Regulation. Consequently, the 
request for an adjustment had to be rejected. 
(47) However, with regard to export sales, it was found that the Japanese companies 
entirely managed such sales. The function of the Singapore company was limited to 
invoicing the goods and to arranging the shipping. Therefore, since the related 
companies' functions can be considered similar to those of a trader, an adjustment 
of 5% was deducted from the price to the first independent customer in the 
Community, in order to account for their involvement in the selling and 
administrative activities of the Singapore producer. The level of the adjustment was 
determined at 5% since the actual expenses incurred by the Japanese related 
companies were not reported in the reply to the questionnaire, although this was 
specifically requested, and consequently could not be verified on-spot. 
Credit costs 
(48) In recital (39) of the provisional Regulation it was stated that the allowances 
claimed for credit cost by all Korean companies were rejected since the claims were 
made on the basis of a so called "open account", i.e. a revolving payment system, 
without evidence of an agreement between supplier and buyer of the product at the 
date of sale. Three Korean producers/exporters claimed that this would not be in 
line with traditional Commission practice. On this basis, a credit cost adjustment to 
normal value representing at least a credit period of 30 days should have been 
granted. 
(49) It is the Institutions' practice to accept an allowance for credit costs where the 
exporter shows that the payment terms were a factor taken into account in the 
determination of the prices charged, in accordance with Article 2(10)(g) of the 
Basic Regulation. An adjustment will therefore only be granted for the number of 
days shown to be agreed at the date of the sale, as only the expenses relating to that 
number of days can be considered to have influenced the price. Such an agreement 
does not exist were payments were made on an open account basis and 
consequently the claim could not be accepted. 
Warranty costs 
(50) One Korean producer/exporter claimed that a more reasonable estimate of an 
allowance for differences in warranty costs should be made by including certain 
expenses allegedly incurred in fees paid to independent agents and salaries paid to 
repairmen. 
(51) The investigation revealed that the reported warranty expenses for the domestic 
market were overstated and consequently that they were an unreliable basis to the 
assessment of the adjustment. For the provisional determination it was decided to 
base the allowance for warranty costs only on the actual costs incurred for 
providing customers free of charge with spare parts. In the absence of any new 
evidence which could justify an increase of the allowance for warranty expenses 
the provisional findings are hereby confirmed. 
Other factors 
10 
(52) A Taiwanese company repeated its request for a specific allowance to be made 
pursuant to Article 2(10)(k) of the Basic Regulation, by deducting salesmen's 
salaries, advertising expenses and rent from normal value, since it considered that 
most of the expenses incurred with these functions related to domestic sales. 
(53) The Japanese and Singapore producers/exporters also requested, as an alternative, 
in case of rejection of the claim for a level of trade adjustment (see supra), that 
other specific allowances —like salesmen's salaries, advertising expenses, etc.--
should be deducted from normal value. The Singapore company objected to the 
rejection of this claim (see recital (72) of the provisional Regulation) claiming that 
the request for evidence on the difference in prices paid by the customers on the 
domestic market provided in Article 2(10)(k) is merely provided as an example, 
and therefore is not imperative. 
(54) All companies which made the claim under Article 2(10)(k) of the Basic 
Regulation, failed to provide evidence of significant and consistent price 
differences as required by that provision. To show only a difference in costs 
between the export and the domestic sales departments of the same company is an 
insufficient basis for a claim for differences in price comparability, let alone to 
demonstrate an impact on prices. Furthermore, the assumption that the request for a 
difference in prices is given as an example is incorrect, since subparagraph (k) 
reinforces the two requirements set in the general part of Article 2(10) of the Basic 
Regulation, i.e. that the adjustments listed in (a) to (k) can only be granted if it is 
claimed and demonstrated that they affect prices and price comparability. In the 
absence of any evidence showing that these conditions were met in this specific 
case, the claim had to be rejected. 
3. Non-Market economy countries 
3.1 Individual treatment 
(55) The companies to which individual treatment was not granted, contended that the 
provisional Regulation was inadequately motivated in this respect. Furthermore, 
they reiterated their request for individual treatment on the grounds that they were 
independent from the control of the Chinese State. 
(56) It should be noted that, pursuant to Article 9(5) of the Basic Regulation a single 
country wide duty is established for non-market economy countries. The granting 
of individual treatment to certain exporters remains consequently an exception to 
the rule. Each producer/exporter who wishes to benefit from this exception has to 
demonstrate the absence of interference by the State. Two of the Chinese producers 
were able to demonstrate that they fulfilled all the criteria to obtain individual 
treatment. In relation to the three remaining Chinese producers such independence 
was not demonstrated by the companies, therefore the Institutions had no option 
but to apply them the countrywide duty. 
3.2 Model comparison 
(57) Chinese producers/exporters contested the fact that normal value was partially 
based on models of a Korean producer in respect of which Article 18 of the Basic 
11 
Regulation was applied. These exporters claimed that the use of a normal value 
found for a non co-operating company would be unfavourable to them. 
(58) The issue was re-examined and, given that Article 18 of the Basic Regulation was 
applied to the establishment of normal value, these models were finally excluded 
from the calculation. 
(59) One of the Korean companies with production both in China and Korea, contended 
that the normal value for one of their China produced models, should have been 
established by reference to the constructed value of the same model produced by it 
in Korea. 
(60) The request has been rejected since facts available were applied on the basis of 
Article 18 of the Basic Regulation to establish the normal value of the related 
Korean producer/exporter, and, as explained above, these models have been 
excluded from the determination of the Chinese normal value. Furthermore, it must 
be stressed that normal value should be based on data obtained in the analogue 
country as a whole, if possible, and not only on sales of one particular producer. 
3.3 Comparison 
Level of trade 
(61) Chinese producers/exporters continued to request an adjustment for differences in 
level of trade on the grounds that their export sales were made to OEMs. 
(62) As described above, an analysis of Korean domestic sales prices of OEM sales and 
sales of own-brand product showed that any difference in levels of trade in this 
respect was not reflected in consistent and distinct differences in prices. In the 
absence of price differences between OEM sales and own brand sales in Korea and 
since the Chinese normal value has been based on the Korean domestic market, 
there were no grounds to make an adjustment. 
Commissions 
(63) Three Japanese companies are involved in the proceeding concerning China since 
they exported fax machines of Chinese origin to the Community. Their fully 
owned subsidiaries in Hong Kong appeared to have either a subcontracting 
agreement with a Chinese company for production (or assembly) in China or a 
company set-up (legal entity) in China. In the provisional calculation a mark-up for 
the activities performed in Hong Kong and Japan was deducted in the form of 
commission. The Chinese producers/exporters claimed that this deduction of 5% 
from the export price was not correct since this would not relate to an actual 
commission payment. 
(64) As the related Japanese companies' functions can be considered similar to those of 
a trader acting on a commission basis, an adjustment of 5% has been deducted from 
the price to the first independent customer in the Community. This figure is 
considered reasonable given the degree of the related companies' involvement in 
the selling and administrative activities of the Chinese producers. 
12 
(65) Article 2(10)(i) of the Basic Regulation sets out that an adjustment has to be made 
for differences in commissions paid in respect of the sales under consideration. In 
this respect, it should be stressed that it makes no difference if the 
producer/exporter invoices directly its customer in the Community and pays a 
commission to the parties involved in arranging the sales transaction or if the 
producer/exporter invoices the intermediary which in turn invoices to the customer 
in the Community. The latter arrangement is merely a different way of ensuring 
that the intermediary receives its commission. In accordance with the Council's and 
the Commission's consistent practice, the claim could not, therefore, be accepted. 
4. Dumping margin for companies investigated 
4.1 Dumping margin for co-operating companies 
(66) According to Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation, the dumping margin was 
established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value with a 
weighted average export price of all export transactions to the Community. 
4.2 Dumping margin for non co-operating companies (residual dumping margin) 
(67) In the absence of any comments by the interested parties it is decided to apply the 
method set out in recital (28) of the provisional Regulation, i.e. for each of the 
exporting countries the company with the highest dumping margin was selected 
and the highest dumped model produced and sold by this company in significant 
quantities was identified. The residual dumping margin was determined on the 
basis of the weighted average margin established for this model, expressed as a 
percentage of the CIF import price at the Community border. 
4.3 Dumping margins 
Republic of Korea 
(68) For the co-operating producers/exporters the definitive dumping margins, 
expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community border, are: 
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, Seoul 19.8% 
Daewoo Telecom Ltd, Seoul 11.6% 
Nixxo Telecom Co., Ltd, Seoul 7.5% 
Tae II Media Co., Ltd, Seoul 9.2%. 
(69) The residual dumping margin for Korea, expressed as a percentage of the CIF 
import price at the Community border, is 25.1% 
Japan 
(70) For the co-operating ' producers/exporters the definitive dumping margins, 
expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community border, are the 
following: 
13 
Brother Industries, Ltd., Nagoya: 49.2% 
Tottori Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Tottori: 124.2% 
(71) The residual dumping margin for Japan, expressed as a percentage of the CIF 
import price at the Community border, is 130.2% 
Taiwan 
(72) For the co-operating producers/exporters the definitive dumping margins, 
expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community border, are the 
following: 
Kinpo Electronics, Inc., Taipei 6.0% 
Sampo Corporation, Taipei 56.2%. 
(73) The residual dumping margin for Taiwan, expressed as a percentage of the CIF 
import price at the Community border, is 60.8%. 
Singapore 
(74) For the co-operating producer/exporter the definitive dumping margin, expressed as 
a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community border, is the following: 
Matsushita Graphic Communication Systems (S) Pte., Ltd., Singapore 30.1%. 
(75) The residual dumping margin for Singapore, expressed as a percentage of the CIF 
import price at the Community border, is 68.2%. 
Thailand 
(76) For the co-operating producer/exporter the definitive dumping margin, expressed as 
a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community border, is the following: 
Cal-Comp Electronics (Thailand) Co. Ltd., Bangkok 10.4%. 
(77) The residual dumping margin for Thailand, expressed as a percentage of the CIF 
import price at the Community border, is 22.6%. 
Malaysia 
(78) The residual dumping margin for Malaysia, expressed as a percentage of the CIF 
import price at the Community border, is 124.2% 
The People's Republic of China 
(79) The definitive dumping margin for China, expressed as a percentage of the CIF 
import price at the Community border, is 51.6%, 
14 
(80) The definitive dumping margins for the companies which received individual 
treatment, expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community 
border, are as follows: 
Î 
Murata Machinery (H.K.) Ltd., Hong Kong (products originating in China): 21.2%; 
Highsonic Industrial Ltd., Hong Kong, (products originating in China): 23.2%. 
D. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY 
(81) After the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties, some interested parties 
have claimed that the complainant Community producer should not be considered 
as the "Community Industry", in view of the non-co-operation of the second large 
Community producer. However, in the investigation it was determined that the 
complainant Community producer represents a major proportion of the total 
Community production, pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Basic Regulation. This 
producer is thus considered as the Community Industry for the purpose of this 
proceeding. 
E. INJURY 
1. Cumulative assessment of the effects of the dumped imports 
(82) The Japanese exporters have argued that the Commission should not assume non-
co-operation with regard to around 10 Japanese fax producers, which had refused to 
co-operate with the Commission in this proceeding and had not replied to the 
questionnaires sent to them by the Commission's services, because these 
companies allegedly ceased exports to the Community prior to the investigation 
period. The import trends for Japan should be based on the data submitted by the 
Japanese Manufacturers' Association CI A J for these non-co-operators in the course 
of the proceeding, and on the data submitted by the 2 co-operating Japanese 
exporters. These data would show a significant decline of Japanese imports from 
1993 to 1996. In view of these trends, imports from Japan should be de-cumulated. 
(83) An exporter of Chinese products argued that the Chinese exports should have been 
de-cumulated, since Chinese exporters have focused on OEM customers, whereas 
the other exporting countries have aimed at the consumer market. This exporter 
also claimed that different injury margins were found and different pricing 
strategies would have been applied by the exporters from different countries. This 
would justify de-cumulation, since it would indicate a lack of competition between 
these products. 
(84) Furthermore, exporters have argued that the Japanese and Singapore average 
prices were between 40% and 48% higher than the overall average for all exporting 
countries concerned. This would justify de-cumulation for these countries, since it 
would indicate that the products did not compete with those of the other exporting 
countries concerned. 
15 
(85) The conditions to cumulate imports for the purpose of the injury determination, 
pursuant to Article 3(4) of the Basic Regulation, are as follows: 
(a) the dumping margins established in relation to each country are more than de 
minimis as defined in Article 9 (3); 
(b) the volume of imports from each country is not negligible; and 
(c) a cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports is appropriate in light of 
the conditions of competition between imported products and the conditions of 
competition between the imported products and the like Community product. 
1.1 Dumping margins 
(86) As outlined above, the dumping margins found for each of the exporting countries 
are more than de minimis in the sense of Article 9(3). 
1.2 Import volumes 
(87) With respect to import volumes from Japan, in the absence of reliable, verified data 
from all Japanese exporters, they are, for the purpose of the definitive findings, 
established on the basis of Eurostat data. Since Eurostat data do not distinguish 
between business and personal faxes, the import volume of personal faxes was 
determined by applying the ratio between business and personal faxes of Japanese 
origin established during the investigation for co-operating unrelated importers and 
importers related to Japanese exporters. This indicated, for the parties concerned, 
that 41.1 % (in units) of all fax machines of Japanese origin sold in the Community 
in the investigation period were personal faxes. The import volume for Japan for 
the period under consideration was thus determined to be equal to 41.1 % of the 
total imports from Japan as reported by Eurostat. 
(88) Indeed, the Japanese import volumes cannot be based on the data submitted by the 
Japanese Manufacturers' Association CIAJ since a substantial part of this data 
refers to non-co-operating Japanese exporters which refused to reply to the 
questionnaires sent to them by the Commission's services and thus prevented the 
Commission from obtaining and verifying the relevant data. Furthermore, no 
evidence has been submitted to show that no imports of personal fax machines 
other than those of the 2 co-operating Japanese exporters have taken place during 
the investigation period. These exporters have thus failed to prove the alleged 
strongly declining export trends. 
(89) Therefore, the provisional determinations are confirmed, whereby the import 
volumes from Japan have to be established on the basis of facts available, pursuant 
to Article 18 of the Basic Regulation. 
The import volumes thus established for the Japanese exports remain significant. 
1.3 Conditions of competition 
Sales channels 
(90) With respect to the argument that Chinese exporters focussed on OEMs and that the 
sales channels thus had to be considered different, there was substantial non-co­
operation from Chinese producers. Therefore, no general conclusions in respect of 
Chinese exports can be drawn from the situation of the co-operating exporters only. 
Furthermore, the Commission has established that most co-operating parties from 
all exporting countries concerned sell the product concerned in the EU to several 
categories of customers, including OEM customers. 
(91) This also applies to the Community Industry. The proportion of sales to the various 
categories of customers is naturally different. However, this does not change the 
fact that these parties compete with each other, and there would be no justification, 
even had there been full co-operation, to de-cumulate the Chinese exports on these 
grounds. 
Prices 
(92) With respect to the argument concerning higher prices for Japanese and 
Singaporean imports, the Commission has established that Japanese and 
Singaporean personal fax machines imported into the Community have, in general, 
a higher number of technical features and are more at the high end of the product 
range than those from the other exporting countries. Therefore, it is normal that the 
' average import prices for these two countries are higher. Nevertheless, Japanese 
and Singapore products did compete with those of the other exporting countries 
which also exported, though to a lesser extent, high-end product types, and they 
competed with those of the Community Industry, which is shown by the fact that 
they have identical or similar physical and technical characteristics, that they serve 
the same use, and that they were sold through the same or similar sales channels. 
Although the Singaporean and Japanese exporters have, overall, ' not or not 
significantly undercut the sales prices of the Community Industry (see below 2 (a) 
price undercutting), the falling export prices from Singapore and Japan had a price 
suppressing effect which had the result that the Community Industry was not in a 
position to rise its prices to a profitable level. 
Therefore, the conditions of competition are similar. 
1.4 Conclusions 
(93) In view of the above, the conclusions of the provisional findings are confirmed, 
whereby the conditions to cumulate imports for the purpose of the injury 
determination, pursuant to Article 3(4) of the Basic Regulation, are fulfilled. 
General injury factors 
General remark 
(94) On the basis of the representations received after the imposition of provisional 
measures and further investigations, a number of the general injury factors have 
now been definitively established. 
17 
Consumption 
(95) After the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duties, the consumption in the 
Community is now established as follows. 
(96) It grew from around l.lmio units in 1993 to 2.5mio units in 1996 (investigation 
period), an increase of around 130%. 
Cumulated volumes, market shares 
(97) Furthermore, the following trends were established for the cumulated imports from 
the countries concerned: 
(i) In the period 1993 to 1994, the exporting countries increased their sales 
volume by 33.7%, but their market shares decreased by 11.4 %-points (from 
62.5% to 51.1%). 
(ii) In the period 1994 to 1996, the import volume of the exporting countries 
increased by 76.9%, and their market shares went up from 51.1 % to 64.3 %, 
i.e. by 13.2 %-points. 
Prices 
(a) Price undercutting 
(98) After the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duties, it was established that 
there was no price undercutting for the (only) exporter from Singapore. 
(99) For the other co-operating exporters, the provisional findings are confirmed 
whereby price undercutting was found for the model groups on which the 
determination was based. The undercutting margins established per model group 
range between 1.3% and 41.8%. The weighted average undercutting margin in 
relation to the total imports per country are definitively determined as follows: PR 
China 18.5%, Japan 0.3%, Taiwan 4.5%, Singapore 0.0%, Korea 9.2%, Thailand 
10.9%, Malaysia 41.8%. The weighted average undercutting margin for all 
countries concerned is 8.4%. 
(b) Sales prices 
(100) In the period 1993 to 1994, the sales prices of the co-operating exporters decreased 
on average by 11% and, between 1994 and 1996, the decrease amounted to 26.1 %, 
on average. The Japanese and Singaporean exporters also showed decreasing price 
trends in this period. 
Situation of the Community Industry 
(101) On the basis of the comments received after imposition of the provisional anti­
dumping duties and further investigations, the following was established: 
(102) In the period 1993 to 1994, the Community Industry's sales volumes rose by 140 % 
and the market shafes went up by 7.7 %-points (from 16.3% to 24 %). This 
positive development was based on the investment made in 1993. 
(103) On the other hand, in the period 1994 to 1996, the sales volume of the Community 
industry decreased by 14.7 % and its market share decreased from 24.0% to 14.5%, 
i.e. by 9.5%-points. 
(104) In the period 1994 to 1996, the quantities produced and the production capacity 
utilisation decreased substantially as a result of decreasing sales volumes and sales 
prices decreased by 17.5 %. In the same period, employment fell by 21.7%. In the 
same period, the financial results decreased and, in the investigation period, 
showed a two-digit loss (%) on turnover. The Community Industry was not in a 
position to increase its prices to a profitable level, due to the price depression on 
the Community market. 
4. Conclusions 
(105) In the light of the above, it is concluded that the Community industry has suffered 
material injury. 
F. CAUSATION OF INJURY 
1. Dumped imports 
(106) The penetration of the Community market by imports at dumped prices sold 
through the same distribution channels and into the same (transparent) market, 
coincided with a loss of market shares and a deterioration of the financial situation 
of the Community Industry. This industry, throughout the investigation period, sold 
at prices substantially below cost of production. It had not been in a position to 
increase its prices to a profitable level due to the price suppression on the market. 
The price suppressing effect was caused by the undercutting exporters and by the 
Japanese and Singaporean exporters taken together, the latter's' export prices also 
showing a continually decreasing trend. Therefore, the Community Industry had to 
face, at the same time, dumped imports from Japan and Singapore for products that 
were generally in the higher segment of the market, and dumped imports from the 
other exporting countries, concerning more the lower segment of the market where 
competition is mainly led by price. 
2. Other factors 
(107) After the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties, it was argued that the 
injury suffered by the Community industry might have been caused by Sagem, the 
second largest Community producer. 
(108) In this respect, data obtained during the investigation indicates that Sagem's market 
share, which had increased from 1993 to 1994, considerably decreased between 
1994 and the investigation period. Furthermore, statistical information indicates 
19 
that on Sagem's main market (France), this company normally charged the highest 
prices within a group of comparable models. On the basis of this information, it is 
considered unlikely that Sagem has to any significant extent contributed to the 
injury suffered bythe Community Industry. 
(109) With respect to imports from countries not subject to the investigation, the 
provisional findings had established that there were, in the investigation period, no 
significant imports. No substantiated comments were raised in this respect. 
3. Conclusions 
(110) In the light of the above, it is considered that the dumped imports from the 
exporting countries concerned have caused material injury to the Community 
Industry. 
G. COMMUNITY INTEREST 
(111) After the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties, it was argued that anti­
dumping duties would unduly burden consumers and thus be against the 
Community interest. In consequence, further investigations have been undertaken 
and the following findings have been established. 
4. Community Industry and other Community producers 
(112) It was established in the investigation that the Community Industry is viable, which 
is, inter alia, shown by continued investment and the development of its own plain-
paper (thermal-transfer) personal fax machine which will shortly be introduced into 
the market. It can be expected that this industry would discontinue its activities in 
the Community if no measures against dumping were taken, in view of the 
magnitude and duration of financial losses suffered due to dumped imports. 
Without measures, the price-depressive effect of the dumped imports would 
continue and frustrate all efforts of the Community industry to become profitable. 
As a result, around 370 jobs directly linked to the product concerned would be lost 
in the Community. On the other hand, the imposition of measures would enable 
this industry to maintain and even develop its activities in the EU. 
(113) Furthermore, it is considered that the imposition of anti-dumping duties is likely to 
positively affect directly and indirectly around 4000 jobs, i.e. around 1000 
employees within all Community producers (Philips, Sagem and the Japanese 
transplants), and indirectly a further 3000 jobs in the area of manufacturing related 
servicing/supply (based on industry evaluations for this sector that 1 industrial 
employment would entail at least 3 support jobs). 
5. Unrelated importers/traders 
(114) The investigation has shown that, for unrelated importers and traders, the product 
concerned represented, in general, only a small part of the overall business, on 
average 1% of total turnover. For the co-operating importers, no employment and 
no significant investment was directly related to the product concerned. All but one 
20 
of these companies explained that anti-dumping duties would not have a major 
impact on overall sales, profits and employment. 
6. Consumers ; 
(115) On the basis of the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed, the average consumer 
price increase, for products imported from the countries concerned, would be 
around 12 %, based on the assumption that exporters subject to high anti-dumping 
duties, i.e. duties between 40% and 89%, would discontinue their exports to the 
Community market, whereas the remaining exporters would continue selling on the 
Community market.. The individual price increase for exporters subject to anti­
dumping duties below the average, accounting for around 70 % of the exports from 
the countries concerned, would even be lower, namely between 3% and 9 %. For a 
product with a useful lifetime of around 5 years, the average yearly charge due to 
anti-dumping duties would thus be around 6 ECU. These relatively minor charges 
would still be partly neutralised by the normal price decreases for the product 
concerned. 
(116) Apart from the above-mentioned price increases for imported products, the 
consumer will be able to rely on a growing market supply from all Community 
producers. It can be expected that the market share of all Community producers 
would rise from around 35% in 1996 to around 50% after the imposition of anti­
dumping duties. These Community producers are likely to keep their prices stable, 
in order to obtain the benefits of higher market shares and sales volumes which, in 
turn, would lead to reduced per-unit- costs and improved financial results. 
(117) The European consumers' association (BEUC), although invited to do so, did not 
participate and did not submit comments. 
(118) In view of the above, it is considered that the charge to the consumers as a result of 
anti-dumping duties for personal fax machines imported from the countries 
concerned, is moderate compared to the benefits of securing the continuation of 
industrial activities and employment requiring high qualifications in the 
Community. 
7. Information Society 
(119) It was argued, that the imposition of anti-dumping duties would affect the 
development of the Information Society. 
(120) In this respect, it is explicitly stated in the 1996 Singapore Agreement on 
Information Technology Products that this Agreement does not in any respect 
interfere with the right to impose anti-dumping measures, where applicable. 
Furthermore, it is considered that the small impact on the consumers, as indicated 
above, will not negatively influence the demand for the product concerned. 
8. Impact of anti-dumping measures on competition 
(121) The imposition of anti-dumping duties on those exporters for which high dumping 
and injury margins were established, and whose exports would be subject to high 
anti-dumping duties, is likely to lead to a drop in sales volume and market share for 
21 
these parties. However, for the majority of exporters concerned the impact of the 
duties will be moderate and it is not expected that these exporters would be 
significantly affected in respect of their competitive situation. Therefore, there will 
be still a considerable number of strong competitors of the Community producers 
on the market. 
9. Conclusions 
(122) In the light of the above, it is considered that there are no compelling reasons 
against the imposition of anti-dumping duties. 
H. DEFINITIVE DUTY 
1. Injury margins 
(123) For the purpose of determining which level of duty would be necessary to remove 
the injury caused to the Community Industry by the dumped imports, it was 
considered that a price level based on the Community Industry's cost of production 
plus a reasonable profit should be calculated. A profit margin of 10.7 % on 
turnover was regarded as an appropriate minimum. It is also considered that, as to 
its present and future situation, there is and will be a need for intensive and 
increased R&D efforts, in particular in view of further miniaturisation and future 
product generations adapted to new developments in telecommunications 
technology. In addition, the above profit margin is sufficient to provide the 
resources for the investment necessary to produce the new product types and to 
provide a reasonable return on the capital already invested. 
(124) Furthermore, it is considered that this profit margin is in line with the profit 
margins found for sales of the exporters concerned on their domestic markets, and 
it is also in line with the profit margins used in past anti-dumping cases for similar 
industries (e.g.: cases concerning small screen CTVs, audio cassettes, video 
cassette tapes, magnetic discs, aluminium electrolytic capacitors, TV camera 
systems: profit rates between 10 and 12% on turnover were used in these cases). 
(125) The injury elimination level was calculated by comparing the weighted average 
import price, duly adjusted for differences concerning payment and delivery terms, 
and on the same level of trade, with the non-injurious price of the Community 
Industry, established as indicated above. The amounts resulting from this 
calculation were expressed as a percentage of the weighted average, free-at-
Community-border value of the imported goods. The injury margins determined on 
that basis are as follows: 
COUNTRY COMPANY INJURY MARGIN % 
JAPAN Brother Industries Ltd. 7.0 
22 
Tottori Sanyo Electric Co. Ltd 28.1 
Others 34.9 
PR CHINA Highsonic Industrial Ltd., Hong Kong. 59.3 
Murata Machinery Ltd. 23.5 
Others 74.2 
KOREA Daewoo Telecom Ltd. 61.6 
Tae II Media Co. Ltd. 50.8 
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. 17.4 
Nixxo Telecom Ltd. 54.8 
Others 73.1 
SINGAPORE Matsushita Graphic Communication 7.7 
Systems (S) Pte. Ltd. 
Others 39.5 
TAIWAN Kinpo Electronics Inc. 32.4 
Sampo Corporation 35.8 
Others 36.6 
THAILAND Cal-Comp Electronics (Thailand) Co. Ltd. 40.7 
Others 47.3 
MALAYSIA All (no-co-operation) 89.9 
2. Definitive duties 
(126) The definitive anti-dumping duties are set at the level of the dumping margins 
found, or at the level of the injury margins, if the latter are lower. These duties, 
expressed as a percentage of the free-at-Community-border prices, amount to: 
COUNTRY COMPANY DEFINITIVE DUTY 
JAPAN Brother Industries Ltd. 7.0% 
Tottori Sanyo Electric Co. Ltd 28.1% 
23-
Others 34.9% 
PR CHINA Highsonic Industrial Ltd., Hong Kong. 23.2% 
Murata Machinery Ltd. 21.2% 
Others 51.6% 
KOREA Daewoo Telecom Ltd. 11.6% 
Tae II Media Co. Ltd. 9.2% 
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. 17.4% 
Nixxo Telecom Ltd. 7.5% 
Others 25.1% 
SINGAPORE Matsushita Graphic communication Systems 7.7% 
(S)Pte.Ltd. 
Others 39.5% 
TAIWAN Kinpo Electronics Inc. 6.0% 
Sampo Corporation 35.8% 
Others 36.6% 
THAILAND Cal-Comp Electronics (Thailand) Co. Ltd. 10.4% 
Others 22.6% 
MALAYSIA All 89.9% 
I. COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTIES 
(127) In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found for the exporting 
producers and countries, and in the light of the seriousness of the injury caused to 
the Community industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by 
way of provisional anti-dumping duties for transactions involving the product 
concerned should be definitively collected at the level of the definitive duties. 
24 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
Article 1 
A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of fax machines 
with a weight of 5 kilograms or less and with dimensions (width x depth x height) 
of the main body measuring 470 mm x 450 mm x 170 mm or less, except for such 
fax machines using ink-jet or laser or LED (Light Emitting Diode) printing 
technology, falling within CN code 8517 21 00 (TARIC code 8517 21 00 10) and 
originating in the People's Republic of China, Japan, Republic of Korea, 
Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand. 
The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-
Community-border price, before duty, shall be as follows for products originating 
in: 
Country Definitive duty TARIC 
(%) Additional code 
The People's Republic of China 51.6 8900 
Japan 34.9 8900 
Republic of Korea 25.1 8900 
Malaysia 89.8 
Singapore 39.5 8900 
Taiwan 36.6 8900 
Thailand 22.6 8900 
The above rates shall not apply to the products manufactured by the companies listed 
below, which shall be subject to the following anti-dumping duty .rates: 
Country 
The 
People's 
Republic 
of China Company 
- Murata Machinery (H.K.) Ltd., 
(Hong Kong) 
- Highsonic Industrial 
, Ltd.,(Hong Kong) Definitive 
duty (%) 
21.2 
23.2 TARIC 
additional code 
8458 
8459 
25 
Japan 
R. of 
Korea 
Singapore 
Taiwan 
Thailand - Brother Industries Ltd. 
- Tottori Sanyo Electric Co. Ltd 
- Daewoo Telecom Ltd. 
- Tae 11 Media Co., Ltd. 
- Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. 
- Nixxo Telecom Co., Ltd. 
- Matsushita Graphic Communication 
Systems (S) Pte., Ltd. 
- Kinpo Electronics, Inc. 
- Sampo Corporation 
- Cal-Comp Electronics (Thailand) Co. 
Ltd. 7.0 
28.1 
11.6 
9.2 
17.4 
7.5 
7.7 
6.0 
35.8 
10.4 8430 
8431 
8434 
8435 
8436 
8437 
8438 
8439 
8442 
8457 
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties 
shall apply. 
Article 2 
Where necessary the Council will, upon a proposal from the Commission, clarify 
on an individual model by model basis which professional fax machines 
coming within the weight and size criteria as provided for in Article 1 of the 
present Regulation, or being portable fax machines to be used only in 
combination with a mobile telephone set, are not covered by the present 
Regulation. 
Article 3 
1. The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty under 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2140/97 shall be definitively collected at the 
rate definitively imposed. 
2. Amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duty shall be 
released. 
Article 4 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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 26 
Draft Commission Declaration to the minutes of the Council 
In the framework of the present investigation, the Commission has come to the 
conclusion that there are no compelling reasons which justify the non-imposition of 
measures pursuant to Article 21 of the Basic Regulation. This conclusion was based 
on the evaluation of a series of complex economic situations and indicators and 
reflects the most likely scenario in view of the findings made in the investigation. 
The Commission will follow very closely the market development after the 
imposition of anti-dumping duties, and should information be obtained, which would 
question the validity of the assumptions underlying this conclusion, in particular with 
respect to the development of prices for consumers and large traders (telecom 
companies), it would initiate an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Basic 
Regulation. In any event, it is envisaged to initiate an interim review within 2 Vi years 
after the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures. 
n 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(98) 262 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 02 11 10 15 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-98-278-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-35407-4 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
U