Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of colour television receivers originating in Malaysia, the People' s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed
Date: 1995-03-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, South Korea, South-East Asia, anti-dumping duty, import, television equipment

COMMISSION  OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

COM(95)  69 final 
Brussels, 02.03.1995 

Proposal  for a 

COUNCIL RFfiULATION (EC) 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of colour television receivers 
originating in Malaysia, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, 
Singapore and Thailand and collecting definitively  the provisional duty imposed 

(presented  by the Commission) 

y< 

EXPLANATORY  MEMORANDUM 

1. 

2. 

Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  23 76/941  imposed  a provisional  anti-dumping 
duty  on  imports  of  colour  television  receivers  originating  in  Malaysia,  the 
People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea,  Singapore and Thailand. 

The  expiry  date  for  the  provisional  duty  was  2  February  1995.  Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  140/952  extended  this  duty  for  a  period  of  two  months 
expiring on 3 April  1995. 

3.  With  regard  to  normal  value,  following  publication  of  the  provisional  measures 
and the subsequent  disclosure  of the Commission's  dumping calculations,  a large 
majority  of the  exporters  concerned  requested,  and were granted,  a hearing and 
made their views known in writing, as did other interested parties. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Several  exporters  made  submissions  on  the  calculation  of  the  dumping  margins, 
which were  accepted  or rejected  on their merits and are discussed  in more detail 
in  the  attached  proposed  Regulation.  Consequently,  the  dumping  margins  of 
some exporters were  modified. 

As  far  as  other  points  in  the  provisional  measures  are  concerned,  particularly 
with  regard  to  injury  and  causality,  various  arguments  were  put  forward  by 
exporters  and  other  interested  parties.,  With  regard  to  the  calculation  of  the 
definitive  duty,  the  Commission  has taken  into  consideration  the  contribution  of 
the  dumped  imports to  the poor  economic  situation  of the Community  industry. 
These arguments are discussed in detail in the attached proposed Regulation. 

The  Commission  originally  published  a  notice  of  initiation3  in  respect  of  the 
proceeding  which  included  exports  of  colour  television  receivers  originating  in 
Turkey.  As  far  as  these  exports  are  concerned,  they  were  found  to  be 
insignificant  and  therefore  it  is  proposed  to  confirm  their  exclusion  from  the 
scope of the measures and to terminate the proceeding with regard to Turkey. 

lOJL255,  1.10.94,  p. 50. 
2 OJL 21, 28.1.95, p. 1. 
3OJC307,25.11.92,p.4 

7. 

In iK^or^ance with Aitiâs  12 of Çmml  ^ejulation  p i €)  M® %mM,  the 
ÇoRimisskm  is  propping  #iat  definitive  antidumping  me&surss  jfeouW  !œ 
imposed  oa imports of mkw  M&mm  mmvws  originating m Malaysia, the 
$§&^&$Qûm*  thel^pphlic of terea, Siagapoie mû  1 M.  In mw  ofohe 
dumping ma*pns e^tahtisJW aj*d the mtimmm  of ih§ kywy mmâ  Ihffefey,  it 
is  considered  necessary  that  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-
imping duties should hi definitively coHeeted to the extent of Ae amount of the 
définitive duty imposed. 

8.  The {^pission  intend to palish the decision to tecmifjaie  the proceeding in 
in 

respect of Turkey at the same time as the Council Reptation 

yf<5--

COUNCIL  REGULATION  (EC)  No 
of 
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of colour television receivers 
originating in Malaysia, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, 
Singapore and Thailand and collecting definitively  the provisional duty imposed 

THE  COUNCIL  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection 
against  dumped  or  subsidized  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European 
Economic  Community4,  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  522/945,  and  in 
particular Article  12 thereof, 

Having regard  to the proposal  submitted  by the Commission  after  consultation  of the 
Advisory Committee, 

Whereas : 

A.  PROVISIONAL  MEASURES 

(1)  The  Commission,  by Regulation  (EC)  No  2376/946,  hereinafter  referred  to  as 
the  "provisional  Regulation",  imposed  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on 
imports  into  the  Community  of  colour  television  receivers  (hereinafter  referred 
to  as  "CTVs")  originating  in  Malaysia,  the  People's  Republic  of  China,  the 
Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand. 

4  O.J. No L 209,02.08.1988, p. 1. 
5 O.J. No L 66,10.03.1994, p. 10. 
6O.J.NoL255,1.10.94, p. 50. 

By Regulation (EC) Wfa 14©»* tfie  €&ua©E extended* the* validity of this: duty 
for a period of tw^months^expiring on••$ April 1995; 

B.  SUBSEQUENT  PROCEDURE 

(2)  Following; the imposition of the provisional' antidumping: èaty; several interested 

parties submitted comments in writing, requested, and were granted, hearings. 

(3 )  Upon request; parties were informed  of the essential fmm  and considerations on 
the basis of which  it  wau intended to* reeommefld  l ie  impositions oi  definitive 
duties and the definitive  collection of amounts secured: by way of a provisional 
duty.  They were also granted  a  period  within  which  to  make representations 
subsequenf to the disclosure 

(4)  The oral and written  comments  submitted  by the parties were considered  and, 
where appropriate, the Commission's findings were modified  to take account  of 
them. 

e. m&met  mwm  cmmrnrnMA-mm Mm LIKE  mmmm 

(5)  As no new evidence nor  arguments have been presented regarding the product 
under consideration and the like product, the findings set out in recitals 8 to  18 
of the provisional Regulation are confirmed 

B,  COMMUNITY  INPUSTRY 

(6)  After  the imposition of the provisional  duties,  several  exporters questioned  the 
standing of the complainants^ on the grounds that the criteria used to define the 
producers'  "main  core  of  business* (recital  23  of  the  provisional  Regulation) 
were  too  weak,  particularly  in  the  light  of  the  fact  that  imports  by  the 
Community industry from  the countries concerned accounted for  up to  25%  of 
their Community production sold in the Community. 

7  OJ. NoL 21,28.1.95, p. 1. 

It  should  be  recalled  in  this  respect  that  Article  4(5)  of  Regulation  (EEC) 

No  2423/88  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  "Basic Regulation")  leaves  a  margin 

of  discretion  to  the  Community  institutions  to  interpret  the  term  Community 

industry  as  referring  to  the  rest  of  Community  producers,  where  the  other 

producers are related to  the exporters  concerned  or are themselves  importers  of 

the product concerned. 

In  this  particular  case  sufficient  evidence  has  been  provided  to  show  that  the 

purpose of the imports of the Community producers from countries concerned in 

the  proceeding  was  to  stay  on  the  market  with  as  full  a  range  of  models  as 

possible or even to protect market niches which would have disappeared without 

sales  of  the  models  in  question.  Account  was  also  taken  of  the  fact  that  the 

commercial  decision  to  import  CTVs  from  the  countries  concerned  had  been 

taken by the producers in question at least partly as a consequence  of the proven 

injurious  dumping  and that the  prices  of these  imports  did  not  undercut  already 

depressed prices on the Community market. 

In addition one exporter argued that, due to the allegedly  insufficient  standing  of 

the complainants,  injury had been assessed  on too  narrow  a basis.  The  standing 

of  the  complainants  has  been  the  subject  of  an  in-depth  examination  by  the 

Commission which was referred to,  in detail,  in the provisional Regulation.  The 

exporter  argued  that  other  non-complaining  Community  producers  should  have 

been  taken  into  account  when  assessing  whether  the  complainants  comprised  a 

major proportion  of the Community  industry.  This factor  has indeed been taken 

into  account  in  the  said  examination  and  the  argument  of  the  exporter  in  this 

regard is therefore rejected as being unfounded. 

(7) 

In  these  circumstances,  it  is  considered  that  the  criteria  referred  to  in  the 

provisional  Regulation  for  the  purpose  of  applying  Article  4(5)  of  the  Basic 

Regulation  were  applied  appropriately  and  reasonably  and  consequently,  the 

findings set  out  in recitals  19 to  23  of the provisional  Regulation  are  confirmed. 

The standing of the complainants thus confirmed,  the allegations made in respect 

of the scope of the injury investigation are therefore rejected. 

E. ORIGIN 

The three Chinese exporters,  specifically  referred  to in recifcal 33 and 34  of the 
provisional  Regulation,  which  disputed  the  Commission's  origin  findings  as 
established  in recitals 33 to  38 of the  same Regulation,  claimed  that  the  origin 
had not been determined for  the People's Republic of China in accordance witn 
the relevant  customs provisions  in force  and  that  the approach  followed  in the 
case of the People's Republic of China was inconsistent  with the me  adopted in 
respect of the other exporting countries concerned. 

As  already  indicated  in  the  provisional  Regulation,  recitals  32  and  37,  the 
investigation  has been based, inter alia, on the  working assumption that  CTVs 
have the origin declared when imported into the Community. 

The Chinese exporters who disputed the Commission's conclusions arising out of 
the origin examination had previously supplied importers in the Community with 
information  that  indicated  that  the  CTVs  imported  into  the  EC  during  the 
investigation period had indeed originated in China. 

The Commission continued to  examine the issue of origin in relation to  Chinese 
exports  and  took  into  account  the  arguments  made  by  Chinese  exporters 
following  publication of the provisional Regulation.  However  no new evidence 
was  forwarded  by  the  Chinese  exporters  concerned  which  would  lead  the 
Commission to consider that a different  conclusion would be appropriate for the 
definitive  determination.  It  was  decided  that  there  are  insufficient  grounds  to 
depart torn the origin of these exports as declared to the Customs authorities of 
the Member States during the period of investigation. 

One Korean producer  alleged that the approach taken by the Community to the 
origin of CTVs in this proceeding would favour non-cooperating  subsidiaries of 
Japanese companies located in Malaysia and Singapore, in that these subsidiaries 
might in the future  declare their CTVs assembled  in Malaysia  and  Singapore to 
be of Japanese origin  and,  in this way,  avoid  the residual  duties established  for 
those  latter  countries.  This  would  be  as  a  direct  result  of  Japanese  exporters 
being excluded from the proceeding  on the grounds  of insufficient  imports into 
the Community of Japanese origin CTVs. 

In this respect it has to be pointed out that the exporter concerned did not submit 
any evidence that the CTVs assembled in Malaysia and Singapore by subsidiaries 
of  Japanese  companies  actually  originated  in  Japan.  A  change  in  the  origin 
determination is therefore not warranted.  It should be recalled that only in those 
cases  where  data  verified  by  the  investigators  at  on-site  verification  visits 
conducted  as  part  of  a  normal  anti-dumping 
that 
declarations were incorrect, was a departure made from the origin as declared by 
importers based on information  received from their suppliers.  With regard to the 
possibility that  in the future  these  subsidiaries  of Japanese companies located in 
Malaysia  and  Singapore will declare their  CTVs exported  to the  Community  to 
be of Japanese  origin,  the  normal  customs  control  against  false  declaration will 
take place.  Should the declared Japanese origin turn out to be true and all other 
conditions  for  initiating  an  anti-dumping  proceeding  against  CTVs  of  Japanese 
origin be fulfilled,  a proceeding may be initiated. 

investigation  proved 

(10)  Since all above claims have been rejected,  the findings set out in recitals 24 to 41 

of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

F. DUMPING 

(i) Normal value 

(a) General 

(11)  One Malaysian  and  one  Thai  exporter  continued  to  claim  that  the  Commission 
should  have  based  normal  values  on  sales  to  third  countries  after  making 
adjustments  for  "cost  differences".  Informed  of the  Commission's  position  that 
the application  of the methodology in question would  require adjustments  which 
risked committing serious errors due to a lack of precise comparable data, these 
exporters  argued  that  the  constructed  values  involved  subjective  choices  as  to 
the establishment  of the amounts for  both  S.G.  & A. and profit.  The  exporters 
concerned  stressed that the constructed  values led to a much more  unfavourable 
result  than  the  method  based  on  sales to  third  countries  and  that,  where  there 
was a choice between  two  alternative  methods,  the  method  leading  to  a lower 
dumping margin should be preferred. 

€ 

After  extensive examination  of this issue», the Commission: rejects the argujnenti 
that the level of  S M  M A, and profit  were subjectively  determined  ft  should 
indeed be noted thafc the level of SO.  & A  and profit  used; for the- e^nsteuejted 
value methodology applied to these exporters were nott déterminée oiivs*ib|eetive 
assessments but were based on actual accounting, data.  The Commissioniremains 
of the opinion that the use of &<&. & A. and prcrfit established a& indicated in the 
provisional Regulation  and  applied  to  producers/exporters  in  market  economy 
countries,  is  more  precise  than  the  suggested  methodology  based;  on  third 
country export prices.  Accordingly, the use of constructed normal values,, which 
are more accurate and therefore more appropriate m confirmed, 

(12}  One Korean exporter objected to the method of calculating the OEM allowance 
in relation to the construction of normal values. The exporter concerned  argued 
that the OEM allowance should be 30% instead of one third of the profit realized 
on own^brand sales; 

In  relation  to  the  level  of  the  OEM  allowance,  it  should  be  recalled  that  this 
allowance has been applied in the past on a ease-by-case basis, dependent on the 
facts established in particular proceedings. In the absence of OEM sales on some 
domestic markets, the Commission has, in this case, decided to  grant the OEM 
allowance by applying the profit used for constructing normal values as one third 
of the profit  realized on own-brand sales. This approach is in line with previous 
practice and has not been objected  to by any other  exporter  in this proceeding. 
The  claim by  the  exporter  is therefore  rejected  and  recitals  51  and  52  of  the 
provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

(b) Republic  of Korea 

(13)  One Korean  exporter  claimed  that  its  normal  values  should  be  reduced  because 
the  Commission  had  based  the  constructed  values  on  the  expenses  incurred  and 
the  profit  realized  on the  sales  of  products  in  the  same  business  sector  and  not 
solely  on  sales  of  the  like  product.  The  Commission  had  originally  based  its 
calculations  on sales in the same business  sector because  it was  not  satisfied  that 
there  were  sufficient  representative  sales  of  the  like  product  sold  profitably  on 
the  domestic  market.  The  exporter  concerned  was  able  satisfactorily  to 
demonstrate  that  its  sales of the  like product  on  the  domestic  market  were  both 
profitable  and  made  in  sufficient  quantities.  Accordingly,  the  exporter's  normal 
values were revised. 

(14)  One  Korean  exporter  continued  to  claim  that  an  OEM  allowance  should  be 

granted  on  comparable  models'  normal  values for  two  of its models  exported  to 

the  Community.  However,  after  requesting  further  documentation  relating  to 

these  particular  sales,  it  was  apparent  that  these  models  were  own-brand  sales 

and  therefore  the  granting  of  an  OEM  allowance  for  normal  value  calculations 

was not justified  in these circumstances. 

(15)  The findings  set out in recitals 54 to 56 are  confirmed. 

(16)  One  Turkish  exporter  of  Korean  origin  sets,  for  which  a  dumping  margin  was 
established  for  the purposes  of the provisional  Regulation,  had  its  normal  values 
revised.  This  arose  because  of changes to  the  normal  value  of  comparable  sets 
manufactured  and  sold  on  the  Korean  market  and  upon  which  the  exporter's 
margin was based.  As a consequence  of these changes it was determined  that no 
dumping  margin  was  applicable  to  this  producer's  exports  of  own-assembled 
Korean origin sets. 

(c) Singapore 

(17)  In  the  absence  of  any  new  arguments,  the  findings  laid  down  in  recital  58  are 

confirmed. 

(d)  Thailand 

(18)  In the absence of any new arguments, the findings laid down in recitals 59 to 64 

of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

(e) Malaysia 

(19)  One  Malaysian  exporter  objected  to  the  amount  of  an  adjustment  made  for 
financing  costs  which  involved  an interest-free  loan  from  its  parent  company. 
This objection was based on the premise that the benefits gained from the loan in 
constructing  normal  value  had  been  overestimated.  After  re-examining  the 
method of calculation and the amount of costs allocated to the like product, the 
effects of the change to the exporter's normal value was adjusted to take account 
of  its  objection.  The findings set  out  in  recitals  65  to  67  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are confirmed. 

(f) People's Republic of China 

(20)  As far as the choice of the market economy country used for reference purposes 
as set  out  in Article 2  (5)  of the Basic Regulation  is concerned,  one exporter, 
after  having  expressed  in the  course  of the  investigation  its preference  for the 
country "with the lowest normal value", indicated that it now considered Korea 
more  appropriate  than  Singapore.  However,  neither  the  alleged  greater 
similarity of models nor the assumption that the comparison would be easier if 
Korea was  chosen were  supported  by  substantiated  evidence.  This  claim was 
therefore rejected. 

(21)  Another exporter continued to express its preference for normal values based on 
domestic prices in the market economy  country used for reference  purposes as 
set out in Article 2 (5) of the Basic Regulation.  In this respect, reference should 
be  made  to  the  fact  that  such  a  methodology  would  require  numerous,  and 
possibly  inaccurate  adjustments,  a situation which  also  led  the  Commission  to 
establish constructed  normal values for the  exporters themselves  in the market 
economy countries concerned. 

(22)  The  choice  of  Singapore  as  the  market  economy  country  used  for  reference 

purposes as set out in Article 2 (5)  of the Basic Regulation  for the  establishment 

of normal value for the People's Republic of China is therefore  confirmed. 

(ii) Export  price 

(a) Market  economy  countries  /  General 

(23)  The  findings  set  out  in  recitals  71  to  73  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are 

confirmed. 

(b) Market  economy  countries  /Related 

importers 

(24)  A  Korean  exporter  reiterated  that  all  exports  to  his  related  importer  in  the 

Community  should  be  taken  into  account  for  export  price  calculations.  This 

request  cannot  be  acceded  to,  since,  the  exports  concerned  were  not  imported 

into  the  Community,  but  held  under  bond,  until  a  sale  to  an  independent 

customer in, or outside, the Community was made. Only those exports that were 

released  for free circulation in the Community  during the period  of  investigation 

were taken into account. 

Recitals 74 to 76 of the provisional Regulation are therefore  confirmed. 

(c) People's  Republic  of  China 

(25)  All  Chinese  exporters  reiterated  their  claims  to  receive  individual  treatment  and 

alleged  that  the  Commission  did  not  sufficiently  motivate  the  refusal  of  such 

treatment in the provisional Regulation. 

10 

The Commission has repeatedly stated, in extenso,  its reasoning for not  allowing 

individual  treatment  of  companies  in  the  People's  Republic  of  China.  In  the 

provisional  Regulation,  reference  was  made  in  particular  to  the  difficulty  of 

establishing  whether  a company  enjoys  real  and permanent  independence  where 

it  merely  appears  to  enjoy  a degree  of  independence  at  a  certain  point  in time. 

No  Chinese  exporter  supplied  sufficient  evidence  to  warrant  a  different 

conclusion  to  be  drawn/Although,  some  exporters  were  able to  show  that  they 

enjoyed  a  degree  of  independence  from  the  state  in  that  they  were  not  wholly 

controlled  state  organizations,  this  freedom  can  only  be  seen  as  conferring  at 

most  a  quasi-autonomous  status  within  an  economic  and  political  system  that 

still  retains  a  large  degree  of  centralized  control  and  which  clearly  does  not 

correspond to that which pertains in a market economy country. 

It is considered that the reasons for not allowing individual treatment in this case 

are  sufficiently  explained.  The  findings  set  out  in  recitals  78  to  81  of  the 

provisional Regulation are therefore  confirmed. 

(iii)  Comparison 

(26)  Several  exporters  disputed  the  preliminary  determination  in  so  far  as  it  rejected 

the allowances  claimed under Article 2(10)(c)  of the Basic Regulation  in respect 

of  OEM  sales.  After  due  consideration,  the  Commission  accepted  that  those 

direct  selling  expenses  claimed  by  exporters  and  duly  substantiated  should  be 

deducted  in  full,  as  the  expenses  to  which  they  relate  formed  part  of  expenses 

included in the construction of normal value for the OEM models. 

(27)  Although  the  difference  in  prices  for  sales  made  in  different  quantities  was 

already taken into  account  by the  acceptance  of a volume  rebate granted  by the 

exporter  concerned  in  the  calculation  of  normal  value,  one  Korean  exporter 

continued  to  claim  an  allowance  for  sales  made  in  different  quantities  and  at 

different  commercial  stages.  At  the  request  of  the  Commission  the  exporter 

produced  further  evidence  to  support 

its  claim.  However,  the  evidence 

forwarded  did not justify  making the additional  allowances claimed . 

11 

(28)  All producers  concerned  reiterated  their claims that certain commissions  paid to 

companies  belonging  to  the  same  group  should  not  be  treated,  as  indicated  in 

recital  86  of the provisional Regulation,  as expenses under Article  2  (10)  (c)  (v) 

of  the  Basic  Regulation.  Following  the  imposition  of  provisional  duties,  the 

producers  concerned  provided  sufficient  evidence  that  the  commissions  in 

question  related  partly  to  payments  which  had  no  bearing  on  the  sales  under 

consideration.  Accordingly,  the  relevant  adjustments  were  reduced  to  the 

amount corresponding to the actual sales commissions. 

(29)  Two  Korean  exporters  objected  to  the  Commission  reducing  the  allowance 

claimed  in  respect  of  normal  value  for  the  cost  of  credit  granted,  by  the  costs 

relating  to  the  financing  of  value  added  tax  (VAT)  and  special  excise  tax 

portions  of the net invoiced  amount.  They argued that the taxes  charged  on the 

invoices were directly related to the sales under consideration  and that they were 

demonstrably part of the costs of credit relating to the sales. 

After  due  consideration,  the  Commission  accepted  that  the  costs  of  credit 

relating  to  special  excise  tax  did  form  part  of  legitimate  costs  relating  to  sales 

and thus could  form part of the allowance  claimed,  after taking  into  account  the 

legal  deadline  for  rendering  the  monies  due  to  the  Korean  tax  authorities. 

However,  in  the  case  of  VAT,  their  arguments  were  rejected.  No  direct  link 

between  the  (net)  costs  of  VAT  payable  with  the  sales  concerned  could  be 

established  since  the  amount  of  VAT  charged  on  domestic  sales  is  not 

accountable  in  full  to  the  Korean  tax  authorities,  such  VAT  is  offset  against 

VAT  charged  on  the  purchases  of  the  exporters  concerned  and  only  the  net 

amount  is  payable,  (if  any).  Any  cost  of  credit  relating  to  the  exporters'  VAT 

accounting  system  is  a  general  overhead  expense  and  cannot  be  identified 

separately  as  a  selling  expense  for  CTVs.  The  credit  adjustments  of  the 

producers concerned were revised  accordingly. 

(30)  Several  Chinese  exporters  claimed that an adjustment  to  normal  value  should  be 

granted  for  differences  "in  economic  levels"  existing  between  the  People's 

Republic  of China and the market economy  country used  for reference  purposes 

as  set  out  in  Article  2  (5)  of  the  Basic  Regulation. 

In  the  absence  of  any 

provision  in  the  Basic  Regulation  in  this  respect,  no  such  adjustment  was 

granted. 

12 

(iv) Dumping margins 

(a) Co-operating Exporters 

(31)  Account  being  taken  of  comments  received  from  interested  parties  where 

appropriate, the dumping margins thus established are as follows: 

Malaysia: 

-Makonka: 
-Orion: 
- Technol Silver: 

2.3% 
13.5% 
25.1% 

- Thai companies assembling CTVs of Malaysian origin: 

- GoldStar Mitr: 
- World Electric: 

19.6% 
17.3% 

Thailand: 

Singapore: 

Korea: 

- Samsung: 
- Teletech: 
- Thomson: 

- Hitachi: 
- Funai: 
- Philips: 
- Sanyo: 
- Thomson: 

-Daewoo: 
-GoldStar: 
-Samsung: 

29.7% 
33.6% 
14.7% 

16.3% 
0% 
24.6% 
14.4% 
13.3% 

17.9% 
13.4% 
13.7% 

- Turkish companies assembling CTVs of Korean origin: 

- Profilo: 
- Bekoteknik: 

0% 
0% 

People's Republic of China: 

25.6% 

13 

(b) Non-cooperating  Exporters 

(32)  Several  Chinese  exporters  disputed  the  methodology  used  for  the  establishment 

of  the  weighted  average  dumping  margin  for  the  People's  Republic  of  China in 

the provisional Regulation.  One exporter claimed in particular that the weighted 

average  dumping  margin  of  the  co-operating  companies  should  be  used  for  all 

Chinese exporters. 

In  the  absence  of  any  indication  that  the  dumping  margins  of  the  non-

cooperating  companies  are  lower  than  the  maximum  margin  found  at  the  co 

operating  companies,  it is considered  that this claim should be rejected.  Indeed, 

if  dumping  margins  had  been  lower,  the  exporters  concerned  would,  in  all 

probability, have made themselves known and co-operated. 

(33)  Several  of  the  Chinese  exporters  claimed  that  the  methodology  chosen  would 

dissuade  exporters  from  co-operating  since  it  did  not  take  account  of  the 

relatively high level of co-operation reached in the present case. 

It has to be stressed in this respect that, on the contrary, co-operation enables the 

companies  to  improve  the  information  available  to  the  Commission. 

In 

particular, it is clear that the larger the percentage  of co-operating  exporters, the 

smaller  the  impact  of  the  "highest  dumping  margin"  on  the  level  of  the  duty 

applicable.  Finally,  as  far  as  the  reasoning  is  based  on  the  percentage  of  co 

operation,  it  is  precisely  because  the  reported  figures  were  considered  as 

representative that they were used as "facts available". 

(34)  In  the  absence  of  any  further  comment,  Recitals  95  and  96  of  the  provisional 

Regulation are therefore  confirmed. 

14 

G.  INJURY 

(i) Prices of the dumped imports 

(a) Related importers 

(35)  Concerning the method of establishing the level of price undercutting in relation 
to  sales  by  related  importers  to  the  first  independent  customers  in  the 
Community,  one exporter  objected  that  the  model  comparison,  as explained  in 
recitals  102 and  103 of the  provisional  Regulation,  did  not  take  account  of all 
factors  affecting  selling  prices.  The  exporter  claimed  that  differences  in  signal 
reception capabilities had an impact on the selling price. In view of the fact  that 
no conclusive evidence was supplied by this exporter to support its objection and 
that no other exporter  contested  the criteria which were uniformally  applied for 
determining the comparability of models, the Commission found  that there were 
no reasonable grounds to modify the price undercutting calculation. 

(b) Unrelated importers 

(36)  For  the  purposes  of  the  establishment  of  price  undercutting,  the  price  of  all 
imports  by  unrelated  importers  had  been  established  at  the  level  of  the 
Community  frontier  price  plus  customs  duty  and  other  import  costs  (15%). 
Given the difficulty  of arriving at an amount which took into account all channels 
of  sale  as  well  as  individual  levels  of  trade  for  the  sales  to  non-cooperating 
importers, (a large majority)  and given the fact  that  most exporters who sold to 
unrelated importers had a similar mix of customers it was considered  reasonable 
to  apply  a  uniform  percentage.  Accordingly,  a  further  10%  was  added  for 
additional distribution and marketing costs and profit. 

15 

With  regard  to  this  method  of  establishing  price  undercutting,  representations 
were  made that  the  adjustments  to  the  selling  prices  of the  product  concerned 
were inadequate for allowing a correct calculation. One exporter claimed that the 
10%  mark-up  to  cover  distribution  and  marketing  costs  plus  profit  was 
inadequate  and  that  a  higher  adjustment  should  be  applied.  It  was,  however, 
pointed  out that  its proposals for  adjustments  were based  on a selective sample 
of sales and that, conversely, sales which were made direct to large retail chains 
incurred  little or no extra distribution  or marketing  costs  and therefore  in these 
circumstances a 10% adjustment  would have been excessive. 

Therefore,  taking  all  sales  channels  into  account  an  amount  of  10%  was 
considered reasonable for comparison purposes.  A general change in the method 
of undercutting  was therefore  not  appropriate.  The  findings  set  out  in  recitals 
102 to  105 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

(37)  After  a  general  re-examination,  the  weighted  average  undercutting  margins 
expressed  as  a  percentage  of the  free  at  Community  frontier  price  were  in the 
following ranges: 

- for Malaysia, 
- for Thailand, 
- for Singapore, 
- for the Republic of Korea,  from  38.61% to 54.00%; 

from  7.50% to 23.40%; 
3.02% to 29.89%; 

from 0% to 23.68%; 

from 

For  the  People's Republic  of  China,  the  weighted  average  undercutting  margin 
expressed as a percentage of the free at Community frontier  price was 58.7%. 

(ii) Other injury issues 

(38)  Another  exporter  claimed  that  the  volume  of  so-called  large  screen  CTVs 
imported from the People's Republic  of China was  insignificant  and  should  not 
be cumulated with the imports of other countries involved in the proceeding. The 
Commission cannot accept that these imports should not be cumulated. It should 
be  noted  that  the  Community  market  share  of  Chinese  exports  of  large  screen 
CTVs  alone  was  more  than  2%  of  total  Community  consumption  in  the 
investigation  period  and that these imports represented  more than ten times the 
imports of large screen Chinese CTVs in 1988. 

16 

(39)  One  exporter  continued  to  claim  that  the  Community  industry  had  not  suffered 

injury in the case of imports of so-called  large screen CTVs and that the decrease 

in  sales  of  small  screen  CTVs  could  not justify  injury  causation  in  the  case  of 

large  screen  CTVs.  The  Commission  examined  this  issue  in  the  provisional 

Regulation and the exporter concerned produced no  new evidence to  support its 

arguments.  Therefore  the  claim  was  rejected  for  the  reasons  given  in  the 

provisional Regulation. 

(40)  The  remaining  findings  in  recitals  97  to  117  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are 

therefore  confirmed. 

H.  CAUSATION 

(i) Effect  of the dumped  imports 

(41)  One  Chinese  exporter  argued  that  exports  of  very  large  screen  CTVs  from  the 

People's Republic  of  China were  either  negligible  or  did  not  exist  and  therefore 

could  not  be  causing  injury  to  the  Community  industry.  This  claim  cannot  be 

accepted,  as  the  exports  of  CTVs  from  the  People's  Republic  of  China  which 

form part of the product under consideration  and the like product,  compete with 

Community  production  of  all  CTVs  including  such  large  screen  CTVs  and 

thereby  contribute  to  the  overall  injurious  effects  of  dumping  that  has  been 

found, 

(ii) Effects  of other  factors 

(42)  One  exporter  alleged  that  the  Community  industry  had  suffered  from  self-

inflicted  injury  or  was  shielded  from  the  effects  of  dumping,  in  that  a  large 

proportion of  its lost  sales were  merely  replaced  by Community  industry-owned 

production  in  Austria  or  from  dumped  imports  by  Community  producers  from 

7 

countries involved in the proceeding. 

This allegation  cannot be accepted.  Only a part of the exports  from  Austria may 

be  linked  to  the  Community  industry.  No  evidence  was  produced  which 

demonstrated  that  any of the  imports from  Austria were  offered  at prices  which 

undercut the Community industry's prices. 

17 

As already stated in recital 6 of this Regulation, the purpose of the imports of the 
Community  producers from the  countries  concerned  in  the  proceeding  was  to 
stay on the market with as full  a range of models as possible or  even to  protect 
market niches which would have disappeared.  The producers in question took a 
commercial decision influenced  by external factors  and based  on legitimate self-
interest.  Their  decision  to  import from the  countries  concerned  was  caused  by 
the proven injurious  dumping that took place.  It should also be recalled that the 
prices  of  these  imports  did  not  undercut  the  already  depressed  prices  on  the 
Community market. 

(43)  After  re-examination  it  should  be  noted  that  recital  126  of  the  provisional 
Regulation  requires  correction  to  the  extent  that  volumes  imported  by  the 
Community  industry  from  the  countries  concerned  represented  4.5%  of  the 
market in 1990, while during the period of investigation, this share was 4.1%. 

(iii) Conclusion 

(44)  In consideration of the above, the findings set out in recitals  118 to  129, with the 

exception mentioned in recital 43 of this Regulation, are confirmed. 

I.  COMMUNITY  INTEREST 

(45)  One  exporter  alleged  that  taking  measures  would  not  avoid  further  de-
localization of Community production  since the Community production of CTVs 
would  be  non-viable  for  structural  reasons.  No  evidence  to  support  this 
allegation was supplied. 

(46)  Several  exporters  alleged  that  measures  would  not  be  in  the  interest  of 
consumers.  This  allegation  has  already  been  addressed  at  length  in  the 
provisional Regulation  and in the absence of any further  substantiated  evidence, 
the findings set out in recitals 130 to  138 of the said Regulation are confirmed. 

18 

J.  DETERMINATION  IN  RESPECT  OF  TURKEY 

(47)  Further  analysis  of the  situation  pertaining  to  exports  of Turkish  origin  CTVs, 
described in recitals 98, 99 and  139 of the provisional Regulation was carried out 
and  the  conclusion  reached  is  that  the  facts  as  set  out  in  the  provisional 
determination should be confirmed8. 

K.  UNDERTAKINGS 

(48)  The  Commission  has  received  offers  of  undertakings  from  several  exporters 
pursuant  to  Article  10 (2) of the Basic Regulation.  These offers  have been the 
subject  of  careful  examination,  with  particular  attention  being  paid  to  the 
feasibility of monitoring the undertakings proposed. 

The  acceptance  of  undertakings  for  consumer  products  has  historically  been 
exceptional  given,  inter  alia,  the  complexity  of  the  models,  the  number  of 
different  types and the variety and the regularity with which they are upgraded Of 
otherwise  modified.  All  these  characteristics  lead  to  virtually  insurmountable 
difficulties  in  monitoring.  In  the  case  of  CTVs,  it  is the  Commission's  opinion 
that  these  difficulties  could  not  be  overcome  and  that,  consequently,  such 
measures would  not  ensure  the  long  term  suppression  of  injurious  dumping. Jt 
wp  therefore  considered, after  consultation, that the acceptance of undertakings 
was not appropriate  in this particular  proceeding  and the offers  concerned  have 
accordingly been rejected. 

L.  DUTY 

(49)  Diverging views were submitted on the fact that duty calculations were based on 
thé injury  elimination  level  (where  appropriate),  which  was  arrived  at  by using 
pricf  undercutting  calculations.  No  new  arguments  or  viewpoints  which  were 
sufficiently  reasoned  have been forwarded,  therefore  a change in the method  of 
calculating the Injury elimination level is not justified. 

S See page XX of this Official  Journal. 

19 

On this basis, the resulting percentage increases are : 

for the Republic of Korea 

for Malaysia 

for Thailand 

for  Singapore 

up to 54.00% 

up to 23.40% 

up to 29.89% 

up to 23.68% 

for the People's Republic of China 

up to 58.79% 

For the  reasons  outlined  in the  provisional  Regulation  and  in  recital  25,  32  and 

33  above,  a  single  duty  has  been  established  for  all  producers  in  the  People's 

Republic of China. 

(50)  The  methodology  applied  in  establishing  the  duty  rates  for  non-cooperating 

exporters  who  exported  CTVs  originating  in  Malaysia,  the  Republic  of  Korea, 

Singapore and Thailand, as set out  in recital  145  of the provisional  Regulation  is 

confirmed. 

(51)  Definitive  anti-dumping  duties,  in  the  form  of  ad  valorem  duties,  should  be 

imposed as follows: 

Republic  of  Korea 

Daewoo 

GoldStar 

Samsung 

Profilo 

Bekoteknik 

Malaysia 

Makonka 

Orion 

Technol  Silver 

GoldStar Mitr 

World Electric 

Rate of duty 

17.9% 

17.9% 

13.4% 

13.7% 

0 

0 

(CTVs assembled  in Turkey) 

(CTVs assembled in Turkey) 

23.4% 

2.3% 

10.1% 

7.5% 

19.6% (CTVs assembled  in Thailand) 

13.5% (CTVs assembled in Thailand) 

20 

23.6% 
2.6% 
4.3% 
2.8% 
0 
0 

29.8% 
29.8% 
3.0% 
12.1% 

Singapore 
Thomson 
Sanyo 
Philips 
Ifl^chi 
Eunaj 

lel^fich 
Thomson 
l^msung 

P$q$$'$JUpHblic of China 

25.6% 

M<  C Q W C T I QN  OF  THE  PROVISIONAL  DUTIES 

(2|)  In  view  of  tl^e  magnitude  of  the  dumping  margins  found  for  the  majority  of 
exporters  and  the  seriousness  of  the  injury  caused  thereby,  it  is  co^sid§r§d 
necessary tlwt amounts secured by way of provisional  anti-dymping fjuty  for all 
compass  should be definitively  collected.  Where the provisional  duty exceed? 
the ^uty rate d a t i v e ly  imposed,  the amount  collected  should  pot  exceed that 
of the definitive anti-dumping duty, 

WL$ A J W T EP  TRIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

\. 

^  déPnJfjy^  antidumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of colciur television 
reçeivfrs; 

with i| disgonaj  screen  si?e of more than  15,5 cm, whether  or  not  c^mhipfd  |n 
tji§ same housing with  a radio broadcast  receiver  and/or  a  clock,  facing  wiflim 
ÇN çode$ £x: 8528  IP 52 (Taric code  :  Ex 8528  10 52*10), $S§9  10 H  85|g 
10 56; P ?8  10 58, px  8528  10 62 (Taric code  :  8528  10 6?  *10) $nd 8528 ÏQ 
6$, originating lr| Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand, 

21 

with a diagonal  screen size of more than 42  cm, whether or not  combined in the 

same  housing  with  a radio broadcast  receiver  and/or  a clock,  falling  within  CN 

codes  8528  10 54,  8528  10 56,  8528  10 58, Ex  8528  10 62  (Taric  code  :  8528 

10 62  *90) and 8528  10 66, originating in the People's Republic of China and the 

Republic of Korea. 

2. 

The  rate  of  the  duty  applicable  to  the  net  free-at-Community-frontier  price 
before duty shall be as follows : 

Malaysia 

People's Republic of China 

Republic of Korea 

Singapore 

Thailand 

Rate of 

duty 

23.4% 

25.6% 

17.9% 

23.6% 

29.8% 

Taric additional 

code 

8801 

8807 

8812 

8816 

with the exception  of imports which are manufactured  and sold  for export to  the 

Community by the following  companies which shall be subject to the rate of duty 

mentioned hereunder : 

22 

• 

,  . 

.  •  • 

.:, 
a) CTVs originating in Malaysia manufactured by: 
- Makonka Electronics SDN BHD, Ehsan, Malaysia 
- Orion Electric SDN. BHD, Melaka, Malaysia 
- Technol Silver (M) SDN. BHD, Ehsan, Malaysia 
- GoldStar Mitr Co. Ltd., Samutsakorn, Thailand 
- World Electric (Thailand) Ltd., Chonburi, Thailand 
b)  CTVs  originating 
manufactured by: 

in 

the  Republic  of  Korea 

Rate of 
duty 

Taric 
additional 

code 

2.3% 
10.1% 
7.5% 
19.6% 
13.5% 

8796 
8797 
8798 
8799 
88QQ 

8802 
8803 
8804 
3805 

- Daewoo Electronics Co. Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea 
- GoldStar Co. Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea 
- Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea 
- Bekoteknik Sanayi A.S., Istanbul, Turkey 
- Profile  Telra Elektronik Sanayi Ve Ticaret  A.S., Istanbul, 

17.9% 
13.4% 
13.7% 
0.0% 

Turkey 

0.0% 

$305 

c) CTVs originating in Singapore manufactured by: 
- Funai Electric (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Singapore 
- Hitachi Consumer Products (S.) Pte. Ltd., Singapore 
- Philips Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore 
- Sanyo Electronics (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Singapore 
- Thomson Television Singapore Pte. Ltd, Singapore 
d) CTVs originating in Thailand manufactured by: 
- Teietech (Thailand) Ltd., Chonburi, Thailand 
- Thai Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Chonburi, Thailand 
-  Thomson  Television  (Thailand)  Co.  Ltd.,  Pathumthani, 

0.0% 
0.0% 
2.8% 
4.3% 
2.6% 

29.8% 
12.1% 

8808 
8808 
8809 
8810 
8811 

8813 
8814 

Thailand 

1  3.0% 

|  8815 

3.  Unless  otherwise  specified,  the  provisions  in  force  concerning  customs  duties 

shall apply. 

23 

Article  2 

The amounts secured  by way  of provisional  anti-dumping  duty under Regulation  (EC) 

No  2376/94  shall  be  definitively  collected  at  the  duty  rate  definitively  imposed. 

Amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of duty shall be released. 

Article  3 

This Regulation shall enter into force  on the day following  that of its publication in the 

OfflcialJournal  of the European  Communities. 

This  Regulation  shall  be  binding  in  its  entirety  and  directly  applicable  in  all  Member 

States. 

Done at Brussels, 

For  the Council 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(95) 69  final 

Catalogue number  :  ÇB-CO-95H3f79-lN«C 

ISBN 92«77«8$|63-7 

OfBct for Official Publications of the European Communities