Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of television camera systems originating in Japan
Date: 1994-04-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Japan, anti-dumping duty, import, recording equipment, television

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

C0M(94) 115 final 
Brussels, 06.04.1994 

Proposal  for a 

COUNCIL  REGULATION  (EC) 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of 

television camera systems originating in Japan. 

(presented  by  the Commission) 

EXPLANATORY  MEMORANDUM 

The  Commission, by Regulation  (EEC) No.3029/93 of  29 October  1993, 

imposed  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  television 

camera systems originating  in Japan. 

The  Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No.301/94  of  7  February  1994, 

extended this provisional anti-dumping duty by a further period not 

exceeding two months. 

After  the  imposition  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty 

interested  parties  commented  on  the  Commission's  provisional 

findings. The Commission also heard a number of users of  television 

camera  systems  in  the  Community.  The  Commission  subsequently  took 

account,  where  warranted,  of  the  comments  made  by  the  various 

parties and  informed them of the essential  facts and  considerations 

on the basis of which  it was  intended  to propose  the  imposition of 

definitive anti-dumping duties. 

Three  exporters  have  offered  price  undertakings  which  the 

Commission  decided  not  to  accept.  The  Commission,  in  accordance 

with  Article  12  of  the  Basic  Regulation1^  and  after  consultation 

of  the  Advisory  Committee,  is  now  proposing  to  impose  definitive 

anti-dumping  duties  on  the  imports  of  television  camera  systems 

originating  in Japan. 

1) 

Regulation  (EEC) No.2423/88 of 11 July 1988 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION  ( EC) No 

/ 

Of 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of 

television camera systems originating  in Japan. 

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  subsidised  imports  from  countries  not 

members  of  the European Economic  Community1 ) thereinafter  referred  to as 

"the Basic Regulation", and in particular Article 12 thereof, 

Having  regard  to  the  proposal  from  the  Commission  submitted  after 

consultation  within  the  Advisory  Committee  as  provided  for  under  the 

above-mentioned Regulation, 

Whereas : 

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES 

(1)  The  Commission,  by  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3029/932)  (hereinafter 

referred  to  as  "the  provisional  duty  Regulation")  imposed  a 

provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  into  the  Community  of 

television  camera  systems  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  "television 

cameras"), originating  in Japan. 

The  Council,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  301/943),  extended  this  duty 

for a period not exceeding two months. 

1) 

2) 

3) 

OJ No L 209, 02.08.1988, p.  1 

OJ No L 271, 30.10.1993, p.  1 

OJ No L  40, 11.02.1993, p. 23 

S*-~ 

B.  SUBSEQUENT  PROCEDURE 

(2) 

Following  the  imposition  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty,  a 

number  of  interested  parties  made  submissions  to  the  Commission 

making  known  their  views  on  the  findings.  Those  who  so  requested 

were  also  granted  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  by  the  Commission.  A 

number  of  users  of  television  cameras  also  contacted  the  Commission 

and  made  their  points  of  view  known  in writing  as  well  as  orally. 

(3) 

Parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on 

the  basis  of  which  it  was  intended  to  recommend  the  imposition  of 

definitive  anti-dumping  duties  and  the  definitive  collection  of 

amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  duty.  They  were  also  granted 

a  period  within  which  to  make  representations  subsequent  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. 

(5) 

The  investigation  overran  the  normal  duration  of  one  year  provided 

for  in  Article  7  (9)  (a)  of  the  Basic  Regulation  due  to  the 

complexity  of  the product  and  the  investigation. 

C.  PRODUCT UNDER  CONSIDERATION  AND  LIKE  PRODUCT 

(6) 

The  main  characteristics  of  the  product  under  consideration  were 

described  in  detail  in  recitals  7  to  10  of  the  provisional  duty 

Regulation.  The  division  of  the  market  of  electronic  cameras  using 

three  CCDs  (Charge-Coupled  Device)  into  three  segments,  i.e. 

consumer  cameras,  professional  cameras  and  television  cameras  has 

not  been  disputed  by  the  parties  concerned. 

(7) 

Several  exporters, however,  argued  that  the  scope  of  the  proceeding 

had  been broadened  by  including  so-called  professional  cameras.  The 

Community  industry,  from  its  side,  argued  that  the  duty  should  also 

apply  to  professional  cameras  because  these  professional  cameras 

would  be  competing  with  television  cameras  and  would  be  used  by 

broadcast  companies. 

(8) 

As  outlined  in the  provisional  duty  Regulation,  it  was  necessary  to 

determine  whether  the  so-called  professional  cameras  which  reached 

the  technical  specifications  of  the  notice  of  initiation  could  be 

used  for  broadcast  purposes  by  comparing  in  more  detail  the 

technical  specifications  and  use  of  these  cameras. Account  has  been 

taken  of  the  following  criteria:  technical  description  of  the 

camera;  type  of  transmission  system  for  the  signals;  the  interface 

for  recording  facilities;  the  type  and  size  of  CCD  ;  the  type  of 

lens;  the  lifetime  of  the  components;  the  control  possibilities; 

the  ease  of  operation  and  the  possibilities  for  the  users  to  carry 

out  their  own  maintenance  and  the  use  and  marketing  of  these 

cameras.  No  one  or  several  of  these  criteria  necessarily  gave 

decisive  guidance.  This  investigation  revealed  that  only  those  so-

called  professional  cameras  which  could  be  used  as  forming  part  of 

a  television  camera  system  including  most, but  not  necessarily  all, 

of  the  components  indicated  in  recital  7  of  the  provisional  duty 

Regulation  can  effectively  be  qualified  as  broadcast  cameras  and 

should,  therefore,  be  within  the  scope  of  any measures. As  a  result 

of  this,  a  list  of  professional  cameras  was  drawn  up,  which  are  not 

qualified  as  broadcast  cameras  and  can  therefore  be  exempted  from 

the  measures. This  list  is  attached  to  this  Regulation  as Annex  I. 

-  3 -

D.  DUMPING 

(9) 

No  exporter  contested  the  method  of  calculation  of  dumping  as  set 

out  in  recitals  11  to  17  of  the  provisional  duty  Regulation,  apart 

from  a  number  of  mathematical  discrepancies  in  the  after-sales 

discounts,  ordinary  discounts,  selling  costs  and  advertising 

expenses,  which  have  been  corrected. 

(10)  The  dumping  margins,  as  finally  established  and  after  making  the 

adjustments  mentioned  in recital  9,  are  as  follows: 

Ikegami Tsushinki  Co. Ltd 

82.9% 

Sony  Corporation 

Hitachi  Denshi 

62.6% 

52.7% 

(11)  For  the  producers  which  refused  to  reply  to  the  Commission's 

questionnaires  or  filed  incomplete  replies  to  the  questionnaires, 

the  margin  of  dumping  was  established  on  the  basis  of  the  facts 

available,  in  accordance  with  Article  7  (7)  (b)  of  the  basic 

Regulation.  Since  there  was  no  reason  to believe  that  the  producers 

would  have  sold  to  the  Community  at  levels  higher  than  the  company 

with  the  highest  dumping  margin,  the  calculation  of  dumping  was 

consequently  based  on  the  weighted  average  margin  of  a  camera  head 

with  its  portable  companion  camera  and  a  CCU,  an  OCP,  a MSU  or  MCP 

sold  by  this  company  and  considered  comparable  to  products  sold  by 

non-cooperating  exporters.  The  result  of  this  calculation  is  a 

margin 

of 

dumping 

of 

96.8%  which 

should 

apply 

to 

all 

non-cooperating  exporters. 

-  4 -

E.  INJURY 

(12)  In  the  provisional  duty  Regulation  the  Commission  had  concluded 

that  the  Community  television  camera  industry  suffered  material 

injury  in  particular  through  losses  of  sales,  price  erosion  and 

resulting financial  losses with all relevant economic  indicators of 

the Community  industry being clearly negative. 

(13)  One  exporter  disputed  the  findings  on  price  undercutting.  The 

exporter claimed that the calculation should not have been based on 

the sales of camera heads only, but should also have included other 

parts  of  the  television  camera  system,  such  as  the  Operational 

Control Panel  (OCP), the Camera Control Unit  (CCU), the Master Set 

up Unit  (MSU) or the Master Control Panel  (MCP). 

(14)  This  argument  was  accepted  and  new  calculations  of  undercutting 

were made which now include, apart from the camera head, all of the 

parts mentioned  in the previous recital. 

(15)  Another  exporter  argued  that, for the purpose  of  calculating  price 

undercutting,  too  many  of  the  models  sold  by  one  of  the 

complainants  (Thomson Broadcast)  were used  and that more models  of 

the  other  Community  producer  (BTS)  which,  according  to  this 

exporter  has  the  largest  market  share  in the  Community,  should  be 

included. 

(16)  This  argument  was  accepted  and  sufficient models  of both  Community 

producers  have  now  been  included  in  the  calculation  which  are 

considered to be more representative. 

5 -

(17)  The  exporter  also  claimed  that  FT  (Frame Transfer)  cameras  should 

not  be  compared  with  IT  (Interline  Transfer)  and  FIT  (Frame 

Interline Transfer)  cameras on the grounds that  the technology  and 

consumer perception would be different. 

(18)  This  claim  was  not  accepted.  FT  technology  is  indeed  technically 

different  from both  IT or  FIT technology  because  the  organisation 

of  the.  transfer  of  the  signal  is  different.  This  difference 

however,  taken  in  isolation,  is  not  a  reason  for  concluding  that 

the products are not comparable. Amongst the transfer of the signal 

the consumer considers a wide range of characteristics  and  features 

given  the  specific  application  he  has  in  mind  for  his  television 

camera.  Different  users  will  rate  the  features  of  a  television 

camera  in  a  different  way  in  relation  to  their  specific  use  and 

requirements. It  is consequently not possible  to  limit  comparisons 

to the type of transfer of the signal as requested by the exporter. 

(19)  All of the above mentioned changes in methodology have affected the 

Commission's provisional findings on price undercutting. The margin 

of  undercutting  as  finally  established  varied  between  21% and 60% 

depending on the exporter concerned. 

(20)  All  other  findings  on  injury  set  out  in  recitals  18  to  32  of  the 

provisional  duty Regulation are confirmed,  except  for  the  results 

of  the  calculation  of  price  undercutting  (recital  21  of  the 

provisional duty Regulation) which are replaced by the findings set 

out in recital  19 of this Regulation. 

- 6 

F. CAUSATION OF INJURY BY DUMPING 

I. 

Effect of dumped  imports 

(21)  In  recital  33  of  the  provisional  duty  Regulation  the  Commission 

concluded  that  the  dumped  imports  were  responsible  for  the  injury 

as  shown by  the  fact  that  the  Community  producers  lost  18% of  the 

Community  market  between  1989  and  the  investigation  period  while 

the Japanese suppliers gained  18% of the market  in the same period. 

There  is consequently  a  clear  cut  coincidence  between  the  dumping 

and  the  injury  as  already  explained  in  recital  33  of  the 

provisional duty Regulation. 

II. 

Effect of other factors 

(22)  A  number  of  users  of  television  cameras  wrote  to  the  Commission 

after  the  provisional  duty  was  imposed  and  claimed  that  the 

television  cameras  sold  by  the  Community  industry  were  of  a  lower 

quality.  The  users,  however,  provided  no  evidence  in  support  of 

their allegations. 

(23)  Although  it  was  found  that  certain  camera  systems  from  certain 

producers  suited  the  needs  of  a  particular  user  better  than  the 

camera  systems  from other producers, it did  not  find  a  significant 

overall  technical  superiority  of  television  cameras  of  any  of  the 

producers.  Further  contacts  with  the  users  of  television  camera 

systems  confirmed  the  Commission's  provisional  findings  that  the 

products  of  the  Community  industry  were  of  a  comparable  quality, 

were  similar  in  performance  and  were  competing  directly  with  the 

products sold by Japanese producers. 

- 7 -

(24)  Consequently  no  other  factors  were  found,  other  than  the  dumped 

imports, which would have been responsible  for the injury caused to 

the Community  industry.  It  is therefore  concluded  that  the  dumped 

exports  taken  in  isolation  have  caused  material  injury  to  the 

Community  industry. 

G. COMMUNITY  INTEREST 

(25)  In  its  provisional  findings,  the  Commission  considered  the 

interests  of  the  Community  industry  as well  as  those  of  end  users 

(see  recitals  38  to  40  of  the  provisional  duty  Regulation)  and 

concluded  that  it was  in the  interest  of  the Community  to  impose a 

provisional  anti-dumping  duty  to  counteract  the  effect  of  the 

unfair  pricing  behaviour  on  the  Community  industry  during  the 

investigation. 

(26)  After  the  imposition  of  the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty, 

representations  from a number of users of television camera  systems 

were received which alleged that the measures would not be  in their 

interest  because  the  high  level  of  the  duty  would  increase 

drastically  the prices  of  the  imported  cameras. Some  users,  which 

had  already  previously  decided  to  buy  Japanese  cameras,  also 

pointed  out  that  it would  be  almost  impossible  for  them  to  switch 

immediately  from  a  Japanese  supplier  to  a  Community  supplier 

because  of  the  incompatibility  of  the  television  camera  systems 

from the various suppliers. 

- 8 

(27)  It  is  entirely  matter  for  the  users  to  decide  whether  or  not  to 

switch from imported to Community products. If this happens  it will 

merely  be  a  consequence  of  users  fully  choosing  the  Community 

product  once  the  imported  product  loses  its  unfair  competitive 

advantage.  In any  case, there  are  already  a  large  number  of  users 

which  use  television  cameras  from  various  suppliers,  despite 

compatibility  limitations.  Moreover,  the  purpose  of  anti-dumping 

measures  is  not  necessarily  to  cause  users  to  switch  from  a 

Japanese  supplier  to  a  Community  supplier  but  merely  to  eliminate 

unfair trade practices. 

(28)  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  purpose  of  anti-dumping 

measures  is  to  remedy  the  injurious  effect  of  unfair  trading 

practices  and  to  re-establish  a  fair  competitive  situation  which, 

as  such,  is  in  the  general  interest  of  the  Community.  It  should 

also  be  pointed  out  that  the  users  have  no  right  to  continue  to 

take advantage of the effect  of unfair trade practices  in the  form 

of very low prices. 

(29)  As  outlined  in  recital  40 of  the provisional  duty  Regulation,  the 

investigation  revealed  that  prices  of  television  cameras  in  the 

Community  had  declined  over  the  last  four years  to  such  an  extent 

that  all Japanese as well as Community  suppliers  were  selling  at a 

loss.  If  this  situation  is  not  halted  and  if  profitable  price 

levels  are not  restored,  the  situation of  the Community  television 

camera  industry  will  further  deteriorate  with  a  strong  possibility 

of  shutdown  with  the  consequent  loss  of  a  high-tech  industry  and 

the  disadvantageous  effects  for  users  of  a  reduced  number  of 

competitors. 

(30)  It  is  consequently  concluded  that  it  is  in the  Community  interest 

to  adopt  definitive  anti-dumping  measures  to  eliminate  the 

injurious effects of the dumped imports. 

- 9 

H. UNDERTAKINGS 

(31)  The  following  three  exporters  have  offered  price  undertakings  in 

accordance with Article  10  (3) of the Basic Regulation: 

Ikegami Tsushinki Co. Ltd 

Sony Corporation 

Hitachi Denshi 

(32)  The 

Commission, 

after 

consultation, 

considered 

that 

the 

undertakings  were  not  acceptable  in  particular  because  of  the 

possibilities  to  circumvent  the  minimum  prices  of  the  undertaking 

by  means  which  would  be  particularly  difficult  to  detect  in  this 

case given the peculiarities of the product and the market. 

I. DUTY 

(33)  The  measures  should  consequently  take  the  form  of  a  definitive 

anti-dumping duty. 

(34)  As  regards  the  level of duty provisionally  imposed,  the  Commission 

determined,  that  the  increase  to  the  export  prices  of  each 

individual  exporter,  which  would  be  required  to  permit  the 

Community  industry  a  reasonable  return  on  sales  of  its  television 

cameras  exceeded  the dumping margins  as established.  Consequently, 

the  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  corresponded  to  the  individual 

dumping  margins  of  each  exporter  as  established  in  recital  16  and 

17 of the provisional duty Regulation in accordance with Article 13 

(3) of the Basic Regulation. 

10 -

(35)  Some  exporters  argued  that  the  Commission  should  not  have 

restricted  its  calculation  of  the  level  of  injury  to  the  camera 

heads  only  but  should  also  have  included  other  components  of  the 

television camera system. 

(36)  This  argument  has  already  been  accepted  in  recitals  13  to  19  of 

this  Regulation  for  the  purpose  of  the  calculation  of  price 

undercutting  and  is therefore  also accepted  for the calculation  of 

the price  increase required to allow the Community  industry to make 

a reasonable profit. Thus included  in the calculation were not only 

the  camera  heads  but  also  the  CCU's,  the  OCP's,  the MSU's  or  the 

MCP's.  This  new  calculation  revealed  the  following  price  increases 

necessary  to  remove  the  injury  caused  by  dumping,  expressed  as  a 

percentage  of  the  CIF  import  prices  of  the  Japanese  television 

cameras : 

Ikegami Tsushinki Co. Ltd.: 

98.9% 

Sony Corporation: 

81.3% 

Hitachi Denshi Ltd: 

89.2% 

(37)  For  the  producers  which  refused  to  reply  to  the  Commission's 

questionnaires  or  filed  incomplete  replies  to  the  questionnaires 

the  level  of  price  increase  necessary  to  eliminate  the  injury  was 

established on the basis of the facts available, in accordance  with 

Article  7  (7)  (b)  of  the  Basic  Regulation.  Since  there  was  no 

reason  to  believe  that  the  producers  would  have  sold  to  the 

Community  at  levels  higher  than  the  company  with  the  highest 

dumping margin the Commission consequently based  its calculation of 

the  level of  injury on the weighted  average margin of  a  comparable 

camera head with its portable companion camera and a CCU, an OCP, a 

MSU or MCP sold by this company. This margin amounted to 108.3%. 

11 

(38)  Since  the  level  of  injury  thus  established  exceeds  the  margins  of 

dumping  as finally  established  the duties are based  on  the margins 

of dumping. 

(39)  Representations  from Member  States  and  from  the  Community  industry 

indicatd  that,  given  the  particular  conditions  of  the  television 

camera  market,  the  risk  that  the  anti-dumping  duty  on  television 

camera systems might be evaded and thus rendered  ineffective, could 

be high. 

(40)  The  Council  is  of  the  opinion  that  such  a  possibility  in  this 

particular  case  requires  special  attention.  It  is  noted  that  the 

Commission  will  keep  the  situation  of  the  market  under  close 

examination  with a view to prevent  any undermining  of  the  remedial 

effect of this anti-dumping duty. 

J. RETROACTIVE DUTIES 

(41)  The  Community  producers  requested  the  imposition  of  retroactive 

anti-dumping  duties  on  the  grounds  that  importers  were  aware  that 

the  exporters  were  practising  dumping  and  that  there  would  be 

material  injury  caused  by  sporadic  dumping  in the  form  of  massive 

imports of television cameras  in a relatively short period prior to 

the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty. 

(42)  In the absence of sporadic dumping, as defined  in Article  13  (4) of 

the  Basic  Regulation  there  were  no  grounds  to  impose  retroactive 

anti-dumping  duties  in this case. The  Council  consequently  decided 

not  to  impose  retroactive  anti-dumping  duties  on  television  camera 

systems originating  in Japan. 

12 

K. COLLECTION OF PROVISIONAL DUTIES 

(43)  In the view of the importance of the dumping margins found and the 

seriousness  of  the  injury caused  to the Community  producers, the 

Council considers it necessary that the amounts secured by way of 

provisional anti-dumping duties should be collected, either in full 

or  to a maximum  of the duty definitively  imposed  in those cases 

where the definitive duty is less than the provisional  duty. The 

duty should be definitively collected for all models of television 

camera  systems  originating  in Japan not  included  in the  listing 

attached to this Regulation as Annex I. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

A  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  imposed  on  imports  of 

television camera systems falling within CN codes 8525 30 99 (Taric 

Code:  8525 30 99*10),  8537 10 91  (Taric  Code:  8537 10 91*91), 

8537 10 99  (Taric  Code:  8537 10 99*91),  8529 90 98  (Taric  Code: 

8529 90 98*98), 8543 80 80  (Taric Code: 8543 80 80*97), 8528 10 31 

(Taric Code: 8528 10 31*10), 8528 10 41 (Taric Code: 8528 10 41*10) 

and 8528 10 49  (Taric Code: 8528 10 49*10) originating in Japan. 

2. 

Television  camera  systems  may  consist  of  a  combination  of  the 

following parts, imported either together or separately: 

(a)  a  camera  head  with  three  sensors  (12  mm  or  more  charge-

coupled device pick-up devices) with more than 400 000 pixels 

each, which can be connected to a rear adapter, and having a 

specification of the signal-to-noise ratio of 55 dB or more 

at normal gain; either in one piece, with the camera head and 

the adapter in one housing, or separate,-

- 13 

(b) 

a view  finder  (diagonal, of  38 mm  or  more); 

(c) 

a base  station  or  camera  control  unit  (CCU)  connected  to  the 

camera  by  a  cable; 

d) 

an  operational  control  panel  (OCP)  for  camera  control  (i.e. 

for  colour  adjustment,  lens  opening  or  iris)  of  single 

cameras ; 

e) 

a master  control  panel  (MCP)  or master  set-up  unit  (MSU)  with 

selected  camera  indication,  for  the  overview  and  for 

adjustment  of  several  remote  cameras. 

The  duty  does  not  apply  to: 

a) 

lenses; 

b) 

video  tape  recorders; 

(c) 

camera-heads 

with 

the 

recording 

unit 

in 

the 

same, 

inseparable,  housing; 

d) 

professional  cameras  which  cannot  be  used  for  broadcast 

purposes. 

(e) 

professional  cameras  listed  in Annex  I. 

(Taric  additional  code:  8786). 

When  the  television  camera  system  is  imported  with  the  lens  the 

free-at-Community-frontier  value  used  in  applying  the  anti-dumping 

duty  shall  be  that  of  the  television  camera  systems  without  the 

lens.  If  this  value  is  not  specified  on  the  invoice  the  importer 

shall  declare  the  value  of  the  lens  at  the  time  of  release  for  free 

circulation  and  shall  submit  appropriate  evidence  and  information 

on  that  occasion. 

-  14 

5. 

The  rate of  the definitive  anti-dumping  duty shall be  96.8% of  the 

net,  free-at-Community  frontier  price,  before  duty 

(Taric 

additional  code  :  8744)  except  for  the  following  companies  for 

which the rate shall be as follows: 

Ikegami Tsushinki Co. Ltd.: 

82.9% Taric additional  code: 8741 

Sony Corporation  : 

62.6% Taric additional  code: 8742 

Hitachi Denshi Ltd.  : 

52.7% Taric additional code: 8743 

6. 

The provisions  in force concerning customs duties shall apply. 

Article 2 

The  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  by 

Commission  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3029/93  on  the  products  not  listed  in 

Annex  I  attached  to  this  Regulation  shall  be  definitively  collected  at 

the rates of the duty definitively  imposed, except  for Hitachi Denshi Ltd 

for which the provisional  anti-dumping duty of 49.9% shall be collected. 

Article 3 

This  Regulation  shall  enter  into  force  on  the  day  following  its 

publication in the  Official 

Journal 

of 

the  European 

Communities. 

This Regulation  shall be binding  in its entirety and  directly  applicable 

in all Member States. 

Done at Brussels, 

For the Council 

- 15 

ANNEX I 
LIST OF PROFESSIONAL CAMERA SYSTEMS NOT QUALIFIED AS BROADCAST CAMERA SYSTEMS WHICH 
ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE  MEASURES 

COMPANY 
NAME 

CAMERA 
HEADS 

VIEWFINDER 

CAMERA 
CONTROL UNIT 

OPERATIONAL 
CONTROL UNIT 

MASTER 
CONTROL  UNIT* 

CAMERA 
ADAPTORS 

CCU-M3P 
CCU-M5P 
CCU-M7P 

RM-M7G 

DXF-3000CE 
DXF-325CE 
DXF-501CE 
DXF-M3CE 
DXF-M7CE 
DXF-40CE 
DXF-40ACE 
DXF-50CE 

CA-325P 
CA-325AP 
CA-325B 
CA-327P 
CA-537P 
CA-511 
CA-512P 
CA-51 3 

/.. 

VF1 5-21/22 
VF-4523 

MA-200/230 

RCU-240 

CA-340 
CA-300 
CA-230 

GM-5  (A) 
GM-5-R2  (A) 
GM-5-R2 
GM-50 

RU--C1  (B) 
RU-C1  (D) 
RU-C1 
RU-C1-S5 
RU-C10 (B) 
RU-C10  (C) 
RC-C1 
RC-C10 
RU-C10 
RU-Z1 (B) 
RU-Z1  (C) 
RU-Z1 
RC-C11 

SONY 

IKEGAMI 

HITACHI 

DXC-M7PK 
DXC-M7P 
DXC-M7PH 
DXC-M7PK/1 
DXC-M7P/1 
DXC-M7PH/1 
DXC-327PK 
DXC-327PL 
DXC-327PH 
DXC-327APK 
DXC-327APL 
DXC-327AH 
DXC-537PK 
DXC-537PL 
DXC-537PH 
DXC-537APK 
DXC-537APL 
DXC-537APH 
EVW-537PK 
EVW-327PK 

HC-340 
HC-300 
HC-230 
HC-240 
HC-210 

SK-H5 
SK-H501 
DK-7700 
DK-7700SX 
HV-C10 
HV-C11 
HV-C10F 
Z-ONE (L) 
Z-ONE (H) 
Z-ONE 
Z-ONE A  (L) 
Z-ONE A  (H) 
Z-ONE A  (F) 
Z-ONE A 
Z-ONE B (L) 
Z-ONE B (H) 
Z-ONE B (F) 
Z-ONE B 
Z-ONE B (M) 
Z-ONE B (R) 
FP-C10 (B) 
FP-C10 (C) 
FP-C10 (D) 
FP-C10  (G) 
FP-C10 (L) 
FP-C10 (R) 

i also called Master Setup Unit (MSU) or. Master Control Panel (MCP) 

- 1^ 

ANNEX I 
LIST OF PROFESSIONAL CAMERA SYSTEMS NOT QUALIFIED AS BROADCAST CAMERA SYSTEMS WHICH 
ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE MEASURES 

1  COMPANY 
1  NAME 

CAMERA 
HEADS 

VIEWFINDER 

CAMERA 
CONTROL UNIT 

OPERATIONAL 
CONTROL UNIT 

MASTER 
CONTROL UNIT* 

CAMERA 
ADAPTORS 

ÎHITACHI 

FP-C10 (S) 
FP-C10 (V) 
FP-C 10(F) 
FP-C10 
FP-C 10 A 
FP-C10 A  (A) 
FP-C10 A  (B) 
FP-C10 A  (C) 
FP-C10 A  (D) 
FP-C10 A  (F) 
FP-C10 A  (G) 
FP-C10 A  (H) 
FP-C 10 A  (L) 
FP-C10 A  (R) 
FP-C 10 A  (S) 
FP-C 10 A  (T) 
FP-C10 A  (V) 
FP-C 10 A  (W) 
Z-ONE C (M) 
Z-ONE C (R) 
Z-ONE C (F) 
Z-ONE C 

WIATSUSHITA WV-F700 

WV-F700A 
WV-F700SHE 
WV-F700ASHE 
WV-F700BHE 
WV-F700ABHE 
WV-F700MHE 
WV-F350 
WV-F350HE 
WV-F350E 
WV-F350AE 
WV-F350DE 
WV-F350ADE 
WV-F500HE* 

WV-VF65BE 
WV-VF40E 
WV-VF65BE 
WV-VF39E 
WV-VF65BE 
WV-VF40E 
WV-VF65BE1 
WV-VF40E* 

WV-RC700/B 
WV-RC700/G 
WV-RC700A/B 
WV-RC700A/G 
WV-RC36/B 
WV-RC36/G 
WV-RC37/B 
WV-RC37/G 
WV-CB700E 
WV-CB700AE 
WV-CB700E* 
WV-CB700AE* 
WV-RC700/B* 
WV-RC700/G* 
WV-RC700A/B* 
WV-RC700A/G 

VJVC 

KY-35E 
KY-27ECH 
KY-19ECH 
KY-17FITECH 
KY-17BECH 
KY-F30FITE 
KY-F30BE 

VF-P315E 
VF-P550E 
VF-P10E 
VP-P115E 
VF-P400E 
VP-P550BE 

RM-P350EG 
RM-P200EG 
RM-P300EG 
RM-LP80E 
RM-LP821E 
RM-LP35U 
RM-LP37U 

*) also called Master Setup Unit (MSU) or Master Control Panel (MCP) 

-*r 

WV-AD700SE 
WV-AD700ASE 
WV-AD700ME 
WV-AD250E 
WV-AD500E* 

KA-35E 
KA-B35U 
KA-M35U 
KA-P35U 
KA-27E 
KA-20E 
KA-P27U 
KA-P20U 
KA-B27E 
KA-B20E 
KA-M20E 
KA-M27E 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM (94) 115 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

il  02 

Catalogue number : CB-CO-94-121-EN-C 

ISBN 92-77-67045-2 

Office  for Official  Publications of the European Communities 

1^2985 Luxembourg 

n