Council Regulation (EC) No 904/98 of 27 April 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
Date: 1998-04-27
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Far East, South-East Asia, anti-dumping duty, facsimile, import, telecommunications equipment

30. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 128/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 904/98

of 27 April 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
the European
not members
Community (1), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,

of

Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commis-
sion after consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

A. PROCEDURE

(1)

Provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed on
1 November 1997 by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2140/97 (2) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘provi-
sional duty Regulation').

(2)

the Community industry,

Following the imposition of the provisional anti-
dumping duties,
two
exporters’ associations, a number of producers/
exporters and importers submitted comments in
writing. All parties who so requested were granted a
hearing.

The Commission continued to seek and verify all
information it deemed necessary for the definitive
investigations at
findings, and carried out
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 defin-
itive anti-dumping duty and the collection of
amounts secured by way of the provisional duty.
The parties were also granted a reasonable period

(3)

(4)

within which to make representations subsequent
to the disclosures.

B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND

LIKE PRODUCT

The proceeding covers personal or consumer fax
machines (hereinafter referred to as ‘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 additional facilities for
communication. In addition to the fax function
and telephone(s) and/or connection(s) for a tele-
phone 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.

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 five 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 invest-
igation. 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 inkjet or laser printing techno-
logies are aimed only at professional use and con-
sequently the machines using these technologies
were excluded from the application of the provi-
sional anti-dumping duty.

(1) OJ L 56, 6. 3. 1996, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regula-

tion (EC) No 2331/96 (OJ L 317, 6. 12. 1996, p. 1).

(2) OJ L 297, 31. 10. 1997, p. 61.

(5)

Personal
under CN code 8517 21 00.

fax machines are currently classifiable

L 128/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 4. 98

(6)

(7)

1. Characteristics

of

professional

fax

machines

the imposition of

the provisional anti-
After
the
dumping duties, exporters argued that,
product definition, the criteria of weight and size
were inappropriate, since they would soon lead to
the inclusion of professional (office) fax machines.

for

the investigation has shown that

the
However,
product definition based on weight and size did
not, with respect to the investigation period, result
in the inclusion of professional fax machines. Nor
did any interested party claim that, between the
end of
the investigation period and December
1997, there were any professional fax machines
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 fax 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,
lead to the
inclusion of professional fax machines in the scope
of the proceeding.

in the near future,

Once such professional fax machines are intro-
duced into the Community the Commission will, if
necessary, submit a proposal
in
order to clarify, on an individual model by model
basis, that these fax machines do not fall under this
Regulation.

to the Council

(12)

2. Printing technologies

(8)

It was further argued that personal fax machines
using printing technologies other than thermal
(i.e. machines using thermal-transfer,
sensitive,
inkjet, laser or LED printing technologies) should
be excluded.

2.1. T h e r m a l

t r a n s f e r

f a x e s

(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 iden-
tical to the thermal paper models. The only differ-
ence 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 print
the electrical components to control
heads are identical. Essential elements of
the
thermal printing technology are thus the basis for
In that
transfer
the newer
respect, it was found that thermal transfer is the
result of
the normal product development of
thermal paper printing technology.

technique.

thermal

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.

i.e.

the
The differences in printing technology,
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 ques-
just an
from the consumer perspective,
tion is,
ancillary element.

Sales channels

In the investigation period,
thermal
through the same sales channels.

faxes were,

transfer

thermal paper and
sold

in general,

Conclusion

(13)

In view of the above, it is considered that thermal
paper faxes and thermal transfer fax machines form
one product.

2.2. l n k j e t ,

l a s e r , L E D p r i n t i n g t e c h -

n o l o g i e s

a n d p o r t a b l e f a x e s

(14) As to fax machines using inkjet,

laser or LED
printing technology, the definitive determinations
have confirmed that these machines are, in general,
substantially different to personal fax machines 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
inkjet, laser and LED printing technology cannot
be considered as like products to the product
concerned under consideration.

30. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 128/3

(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 concerned 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 this Regulation.

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

3. Conclusions

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.

it

is confirmed that

Furthermore,
the product
concerned, within the meaning of Article 1(4) of
Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (hereinafter referred to
is thermal paper fax
as ‘the Basic Regulation'),
machines and thermal-transfer fax machines.

Fax machines using inkjet, 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 cooperation

The level of cooperation by the producers/ex-
porters in this proceeding was particularly low in
Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan, Japan and China, since
the export volume to the Community covered by
the cooperating producers/exporters
represented
only a small fraction of the total exports from the
countries concerned.

The information provided by the cooperating
verified and in the
producers/exporters was
majority of cases was taken into account. Neverthe-
less, 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. N o r m a l v a l u e

(23)

Application of Article 18(1) of the Basic Regula-
tion

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
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 the spot
(invoices referring to the
unreported transactions) should have been used
instead of the highest reported resale price.

company

The investigation revealed that the sales in ques-
tion were actually made on the domestic market
and had not been reported as such by the company.
the company was asked to provide
Moreover,
evidence supporting that the sales in question were
not destined for domestic consumption but were
actually
Singapore. Despite
outside
repeated requests, the company did not provide any
evidence of a subsequent
to a third
country. At a hearing requested by the company
subsequent to the verification visit, no satisfactory
explanation was provided.

re-export

exported

(24) Concerning the method applied by the Commis-
sion 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-cooperation. 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 Regula-
tion) claimed that this decision was unjustified and
that the costs of material, as reported in its ques-
tionnaire 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-cooperation was
flawed.

L 128/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 4. 98

(26)

(27)

(28)

The investigation revealed that the material costs
reported contained serious
inconsistencies and
could not, therefore, be accepted. No further ex-
planations were provided by the company justi-
fying the inconsistencies. With regard to the meth-
odology 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.

operate, and constituted the best approximation
available to the Commission of the conditions of
sales on the Thai market
the product
concerned.

for

(29)

To use, as suggested by the Thai producer, solely
the SG&A and profit of the Taiwanese company
with which it is related does not provide a more
appropriate basis. Indeed,
the Tai-
wanese related company in isolation represented a
relatively small fraction of the Taiwanese market.

the sales of

Constructed normal value (SG&A)

2.2. C o m p a r i s o n

Import charges

the cooperating exporters

The single cooperating 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 provi-
sional 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
in Taiwan. The
company claimed that it formed an entity with the
cooperating 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 Tai-
should Article
wanese company. Alternatively,
2(6)(c) of
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.

the Basic Regulation be applied,

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 in-
formation 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
Regulation, 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 con-
sidered that the weighted average SG&A and profit
incurred or realized by all cooperating exporters on
the Taiwanese market constituted an appropriate
and reasonable basis, since Taiwan is a competitive
firms
market where a substantial number of

(30)

(31)

(32)

In recital 37 of
the provisional Regulation the
Commission stated that claims for allowances for
import charges made by Korean producers/ex-
porters were rejected since these claims were calcu-
lated on an average basis for all products and the
relationship between the duty paid and the specific
model of fax machine concerned was not demon-
strated. 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.

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 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 satisfac-
tion 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

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, reaffirming that
the difference in
functions performed domestically and on the
export side would automatically correspond to a

30. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 128/5

by

level of

trade and that,

therefore, an
different
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
in the
related
Community from the price paid to the first inde-
pendent 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 cor-
responding profit based on that obtained on
domestic sales should also be excluded, pursuant to
Article 2(10)/d) of the Basic Regulation.

importers

the

(33)

(34)

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.

in the present case,

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,
the resale
price from the related importers to the independ-
ent 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 appropriate to
consider
reconstruction
equivalent to a price charged to a distributor.

the export price after

(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 per 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 similar types of customers, i.e. distrib-
utors.

(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 substan-
tiated 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 Commis-
sion 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)

trade,

In the case of Singapore, domestic sales were al-
i.e.
legedly all made to a single level of
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 transac-
tions 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 con-
sidered that the adjustments for differences in level
of trade as requested by the Japanese, Singapore
and Korean producers/exporters were not justified.

for differences in levels of

(39) Nevertheless, in circumstances not covered by an
trade as
adjustment
defined by Article 2(10)(d)(i) of the Basic Regula-
tion, 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 levels of
trade could not be
granted, the function of advertising should receive

L 128/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 4. 98

found indeed that,

a special consideration in the light of Article
2(10)(d)(ii). The Commission examined, in particu-
lar, whether the companies concerned incurred
advertising expenses to encourage sales at levels of
trade other than the one used for the comparison.
It was
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.

for

(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 (Original Equipment Manu-
facturer) export sales.

(41)

(42)

(43)

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.

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
for
which, as explained above, no adjustment of this
nature was required. Consequently, the claim is
rejected.

the Taiwanese market,

Commissions

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.

activities performed for

charged by the Thai producer to the related Tai-
wanese company were not on an arm’s-length basis.
It was verified on the spot that there was a mark-up
between the transfer price and the price paid by the
independent customer in the Community.
first
This difference was intended, at least partially, to
cover the costs incurred by the related company for
the
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 independ-
ent customer in the Community. This figure is
considered reasonable given the degree of
the
related company’s involvement in the selling activi-
ties 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
reaffirming 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
transfers which the two
to royalties and profit
related
Such
received.
companies
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.

Japanese

(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 compan-
ies’ 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 involve-
ment in the selling and administrative activities of
the Singapore producer. The level of the adjust-
ment was determined at 5 % since the actual
expenses incurred by the Japanese related compan-
ies were not reported in the reply to the question-
naire, although this was specifically requested, and
consequently could not be verified on the spot.

Credit costs

(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
relationship
determined that because of
the transfer prices
between the two companies,

the

(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

30. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 128/7

(49)

i.e. a revolving payment system,
‘open account',
without evidence of an agreement between supplier
and buyer of the product at the date of sale. Three
Korean producers/exporters
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.

claimed that

the prices charged,

It is the Institutions’ practice to accept an allow-
ance for credit costs where the exporter shows that
the payment terms were a factor taken into account
in the determination of
in
accordance with Article 2(10)(g) of the Basic Regu-
lation. 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 where 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.

salesmen’s salaries, advertising expenses, etc. (cid:190)
should be deducted from normal value. The Singa-
pore company objected to the rejection of
this
claim (see recital 72 of the provisional Regulation)
for evidence on the
claiming that
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.

the request

(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 differ-
ences 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) rein-
forces 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
the claim had to be
met
rejected.

in this specific case,

(51)

the

investigation revealed that

The
reported
warranty expenses for the domestic market were
they were an
overstated and consequently that
unreliable basis to the assessment of the adjust-
ment. 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

(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 sales-
men’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 (cid:190) such as

(55)

(56)

3. Non-market economy countries

3.1. I n d i v i d u a l

t r e a t m e n t

The companies to which individual treatment was
not granted, contended that the provisional Regula-
tion was inadequately motivated in this respect.
Furthermore, they reiterated their request for indi-
vidual treatment on the grounds that they were
independent from the control of the Chinese State.

treatment

individual

It should be noted that, pursuant to Article 9(5) of
the Basic Regulation, a single countrywide duty is
established for non-market economy countries. The
granting of
to certain ex-
porters 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 treat-
ment. In relation to the three remaining Chinese
producers such independence was not demon-
strated by the companies, therefore the Institutions
had no option but to apply them the countrywide
duty.

L 128/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 4. 98

3.2. M o d e l c o m p a r i s o n

(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 Regulation was applied. These exporters
claimed that the use of a normal value found for a
non-cooperating 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 estab-
lishment 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)

producer/exporter,

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
as
explained above, these models have been excluded
the Chinese normal
from the determination of
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.

and,

3.3. C o m p a r i s o n

Level of trade

(61) Chinese producers/exporters continued to request
an adjustment for differences in levels 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 adjust-
ment.

Commissions

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
the activities performed in Hong
mark-up for
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 con-
sidered reasonable given the degree of the related
companies’
and
administrative activities of the Chinese producers.

involvement

in the

selling

(65) Article 2(10)(i) of the Basic Regulation provides 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 commis-
sion. In accordance with the Council’s and the
Commission’s consistent practice, the claim could
not, therefore, be accepted.

4. Dumping margin for companies invest-

igated

4.1. D u m p i n g m a r g i n f o r c o o p e r a t i n g

c o m p a n i e s

(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. D u m p i n g m a r g i n

f o r

o p e r a t i n g
d u m p i n g m a r g i n )

c o m p a n i e s

n o n - c o -
( r e s i d u a l

(63)

Three Japanese companies are involved in the
proceeding concerning China since they exported
fax machines of Chinese origin to the Community.
fully owned subsidiaries in Hong Kong
Their

(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

30. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 128/9

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 estab-
lished for this model, expressed as a percentage of
the cif import price at the Community border.

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 %.

4.3. D u m p i n g m a r g i n s

Republic of Korea

(68)

For the cooperating producers/exporters the defin-
itive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage
of the cif import price at the Community border,
are:

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Seoul
Daewoo Telecom Ltd, Seoul
Nixxo Telecom Co., Ltd, Seoul
Tae II Media Co., Ltd, Seoul

19,8 %
11,6 %
7,5 %
9,2 %.

Thailand

(76)

For the cooperating producer/exporter the defin-
itive 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 %.

(69)

The residual dumping margin for Korea, expressed
as a percentage of
the
the cif
Community border, is 25,1 %.

import price at

Malaysia

Japan

(78)

The
residual dumping margin for Malaysia,
expressed as a percentage of the cif import price at
the Community border, is 124,2 %.

(70)

For the cooperating producers/exporters the defin-
itive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage
of the cif import price at the Community border,
are the following:

Brother Industries Ltd, Nagoya
Tottori Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd, Tottori

49,2 %
124,2 %.

(71)

The residual dumping margin for Japan, expressed
as a percentage of
the
the cif
Community border, is 130,2 %.

import price at

(79)

(80)

The People’s Republic of China

definitive

The
dumping margin for China,
expressed as a percentage of the cif import price at
the Community border, is 51,6 %.

The definitive dumping margins for the companies
which received individual treatment, expressed as a
percentage of
the
the
Community border, are as follows:

import price

cif

at

Taiwan

(72)

For the cooperating producers/exporters the defin-
itive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage
of the cif import price at the Community border,
are the following:

Kinpo Electronics Inc., Taipei
Sampo Corporation, Taipei

6,0 %
56,2 %.

(73)

residual

The
dumping margin for Taiwan,
expressed as a percentage of the cif import price at
the Community border, is 60,8 %.

Singapore

(74)

For the cooperating producer/exporter the defin-
itive dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of
the cif import price at the Community border, is
the following:

Murata Machinery (HK) 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
second large
of
the
the non-cooperation of
in the invest-
Community producer. However,
igation it was determined that
the complainant
Community producer represents a major propor-
tion 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.

L 128/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 4. 98

E. INJURY

1. Cumulative assessment of the effects of the

dumped imports

(82)

the
The Japanese exporters have argued that
Commission should not assume non-cooperation
with regard to around 10 Japanese fax producers,
which had refused to cooperate with the Commis-
sion 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 invest-
igation period. The import trends for Japan should
be based on the data submitted by the Japanese
Manufacturers’ Association (CIAJ) for these non-
cooperators in the course of the proceeding, and on
the data submitted by the two cooperating Jap-
anese exporters. These data would show a signi-
ficant decline of Japanese imports from 1993 to
1996. In view of these trends, imports from Japan
should be decumulated.

(83) An exporter of Chinese products argued that the
Chinese exports should have been decumulated,
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 coun-
tries. This would justify decumulation, since it
would indicate a lack of competition between these
products.

(84)

(85)

Furthermore, exporters have argued that the Jap-
anese and Singapore average prices were between
40 % and 48% higher than the overall average for
all exporting countries concerned. This would
justify decumulation for these countries, since it
would indicate that the products did not compete
with those of
exporting countries
concerned.

the other

The conditions
the
purpose of the injury determination, pursuant to
Article 3(4) of the Basic Regulation, are as follows:

to cumulate imports

for

(a)

the dumping margins established in relation to
each country are more than de minimis as
defined in Article 9(3);

(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. D u m p i n g m a r g i n s

(86) As outlined above, the dumping margins found for
each of the exporting countries are more than de
minimis within the meaning of Article 9(3).

1.2. l m p o r t v o l u m e s

(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 fax machines, the import
volume of personal fax machines was determined
and
by applying the ratio between business
personal fax machines of Japanese origin estab-
lished during the investigation for cooperating
unrelated importers and importers related to Jap-
the parties
anese exporters. This indicated,
fax
all
concerned,
machines
in the
Community in the investigation period were
personal
fax machines. The import volume for
Japan for the period under consideration was thus
the total
determined to be equal
imports from Japan as reported by Eurostat.

that 41,1 % (in units) of
origin sold
of

to 41,1 % of

Japanese

for

(88)

Indeed, the Japanese import volumes cannot be
based on the data submitted by the 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 rel-
evant data. Furthermore, no evidence has been
submitted to show that no imports of personal fax
machines other than those of the two cooperating
Japanese exporters have taken place during the
investigation period. These exporters have thus
failed to prove the alleged strongly declining export
trends.

(89)

the provisional determinations

are
Therefore
confirmed, whereby the import volumes
from
Japan have to be established on the basis of facts
available, pursuant to Article 18 of the Basic Regu-
lation.

(b) the volume of imports from each country is not

negligible; and

The import volumes thus established for the Jap-
anese exports remain significant.

30. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 128/11

1.3. C o n d i t i o n s o f c o m p e t i t i o n

1.4. C o n c l u s i o n s

Sales channels

substantial

non-cooperation

(90) With respect to the argument that Chinese ex-
porters focused on OEMs and that the sales chan-
nels thus had to be considered as being different,
from
there was
Chinese producers. Therefore, no general conclu-
sions in respect of Chinese exports can be drawn
from the situation of
the cooperating exporters
only. Furthermore, the Commission has established
that most cooperating parties from all exporting
countries concerned sell the product concerned in
the Community 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 cooperation,
to decu-
mulate 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 prod-
ucts 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
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.

that

Although the Singaporean and Japanese exporters
have, overall, not or not significantly undercut the
sales prices of the Community Industry (see recitals
98 and 99), 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 raise its prices to a profitable
level.

Therefore,
similar.

the

conditions of

competition are

(93)

In view of the above, the conclusions of the provi-
sional findings are confirmed, whereby the condi-
tions to cumulate imports for the purpose of the
injury determination, pursuant to Article 3(4) of the
Basic Regulation, are fulfilled.

2. 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
injury
factors have now been definitively established.

the general

Consumption

(95) After

the imposition of

dumping
the
Community is now established as follows.

consumption

duties,

the provisional anti-
the

in

(96)

It grew from around 1,1 million units in 1993 to
2,5 million 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:

increased their

(i) In the period 1993 to 1994,

the exporting
countries
sales volume by
33,7 %, but their market shares decreased by
(from 62,5 % to
11,4
51,1 %).

percentage-points

(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 percentage-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 cooperating exporters, the provisional
findings are confirmed whereby price undercutting
was found for the model groups on which the
undercutting
determination was

based. The

L 128/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 4. 98

established per model

group range
margins
between 1,3 % and 41,8 %. The weighted average
undercutting margin in relation to the total imports
per country are definitively determined as follows:
People’s Republic of China 18,5 %, Japan 0,3 %,
Taiwan 4,5 %, Singapore 0,0 %, Korea 9,2 %,
Thailand 10,9 % and Malaysia 41,8 %. The
weighted average undercutting margin for all coun-
tries concerned is 8,4 %.

(b) Sales prices

(100)

In the period 1993 to 1994, the sales prices of the
cooperating 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.

3. Situation of the Community Industry

(101) On the basis of the comments received after im-
position of the provisional anti-dumping duties and
further
the following was estab-
lished:

investigations,

(102)

In the period 1993 to 1994, the Community indus-
try’s sales volumes rose by 140 % and the market
shares went up by 7,7 percentage-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 percentage-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 profit-
able level, due to the price depression on the
Community market.

F. CAUSATION OF INJURY

1. Dumped imports

(106) The penetration of

Industry. This

the Community

the Community market by
imports at dumped prices sold through the same
distribution channels and into the same (trans-
parent) market, coincided with a loss of market
shares and a deterioration of the financial situation
of
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 profit-
able 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
the
latters’ export prices also showing a continually
the Community
decreasing
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
from the other
market, and dumped imports
exporting countries, concerning more the lower
segment of
the market where competition is
mainly led by price.

trend. Therefore,

taken together,

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 invest-
igation indicates that Sagem’s market share, which
had increased from 1993 to 1994, considerably
decreased between 1994 and the investigation
information in-
period. Furthermore,
dicates 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 by the Community Industry.

statistical

(109) With respect to imports from countries not subject
to the investigation, the provisional findings had
established that
in the investigation
period, no significant
imports. No substantiated
comments were raised in this respect.

there were,

4. Conclusions

(105)

In the light of the above, it is concluded that the
Community industry has suffered material injury.

3. Conclusions

(110)

In the light of the above, it is considered that the
from the exporting countries
dumped imports
concerned have caused material
injury to the
Community Industry.

30. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 128/13

G. COMMUNITY INTEREST

a major impact on overall sales, profits and employ-
ment.

(111) After the imposition of provisional anti-dumping
it was argued that anti-dumping duties
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.

(112)

1. Community

industry

and

other

Community producers

its own plain-paper

It was established in the investigation that
the
Community Industry is viable, which is, inter alia,
shown by continued investment and the develop-
ment of
(thermal-transfer)
personal fax machine which will shortly be intro-
duced 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 imposi-
tion of measures would enable this industry to
maintain and even develop its activities in the
Community.

(113) Furthermore, it is considered that the imposition of
anti-dumping duties is likely to positively affect
directly and indirectly around 4 000 jobs,
i.e.
around 1 000 employees within all Community
producers (Philips, Sagem and the Japanese trans-
plants), and indirectly a further 3 000 jobs in the
area
of manufacturing-related servicing/supply
(based on industry evaluations for this sector that
one industrial employment would entail at least
three support jobs).

2. 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 cooperating importers, no employment and
no significant investment was directly related to the
product concerned. All but one of these companies
explained that anti-dumping duties would not have

3. 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 discon-
tinue 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 ECU 6.
These relatively minor charges would still be partly
neutralised by the normal price decreases for the
product concerned.

(116) Apart from the abovementioned 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
in order to obtain the benefits of
prices stable,
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)

duties
from the

In view of the above,
it is considered that the
charge to the consumers as a result of anti-
fax machines
dumping
imported
is
concerned,
moderate compared to the benefits of securing the
continuation of industrial activities and employ-
ment
the
Community.

for personal
countries

qualifications

requiring

high

in

4. Information society

(119)

It was argued that the imposition of anti-dumping
duties would affect the development of the In-
formation society.

L 128/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 4. 98

(120)

this Agreement does not

In this respect, it is explicitly stated in the 1996
Singapore Agreement on information technology
products that
in any
respect interfere with the right to impose anti-
dumping measures, where applicable. Furthermore,
it
impact on the
consumers, as indicated above, will not negatively
influence the demand for the product concerned.

is considered that

the small

5. 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
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.

6. 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 what 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 develop-
ments in telecommunications technology. In addi-
tion, the above profit margin is sufficient to provide
the resources
the investment necessary to
produce the new product types and to provide a
reasonable return on the capital already invested.

for

(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 turn-
over 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
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:

of

Country

Company

Japan

Brother Industries Ltd
Tottori Sanyo Electric Co. Ltd
Others

People’s Republic of China Highsonic Industrial Ltd, Hong Kong

Korea

Murata Machinery Ltd
Others

Daewoo Telecom Ltd
Tae II Media Co. Ltd
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd
Nixxo Telecom Ltd
Others

Injury
margin
(%)

7,0
28,1
34,9

59,3
23,5
74,2

61,6
50,8
17,4
54,8
73,1

30. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 128/15

Country

Company

Singapore

Taiwan

Thailand

Communication

Graphic

Matsushita
Systems (S) Pte Ltd
Others

Kinpo Electronics Inc.
Sampo Corporation
Others

Cal-Comp Electronics (Thailand) Co., Ltd
Others

Malaysia

All (no-cooperation)

Injury
margin
(%)

7,7

39,5

32,4
35,8
36,6

40,7
47,3

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
Tottori Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd
Others

People’s Republic of China Highsonic Industrial Ltd, Hong Kong

Korea

Singapore

Taiwan

Thailand

Murata Machinery Ltd
Others

Daewoo Telecom Ltd
Tae II Media Co., Ltd
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd
Nixxo Telecom Ltd
Others

Communication

Graphic

Matsushita
Systems (S) Pte Ltd
Others

Kinpo Electronics Inc.
Sampo Corporation
Others

Cal-Comp Electronics (Thailand) Co., Ltd
Others

Malaysia

All (no-cooperation)

7,0
28,1
34,9

23,2
21,2
51,6

11,6
9,2
17,4
7,5
25,1

7,7

39,5

6,0
35,8
36,6

10,4
22,6

89,9

L 128/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 4. 98

I. COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTIES

(127)

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found for the exporting produ-
cers 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,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of fax machines with a
weight of five 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
inkjet 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

2.
free-at-
Community-border price, before duty, shall be as follows for products originating in:

the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net,

Country

Definitive duty
(%)

Taric
additional code

The People’s Republic of China

Japan

Republic of Korea

Malaysia

Singapore

Taiwan

Thailand

51,6

34,9

25,1

89,8

39,5

36,6

22,6

8900

8900

8900

(cid:190)

8900

8900

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

Company

The People’s
Republic of China

(cid:190) Murata Machinery (HK) Ltd (Hong Kong)
(cid:190) Highsonic Industrial Ltd (Hong Kong)

Japan

(cid:190) Brother Industries Ltd
(cid:190) Tottori Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd

Republic of Korea

(cid:190) Daewoo Telecom Ltd
(cid:190) Tae II Media Co., Ltd
(cid:190) Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd
(cid:190) Nixxo Telecom Co., Ltd

Definitive
duty
(%)

Taric
additional
code

21,2
23,2

7,0
28,1

11,6
9,2
17,4
7,5

8458
8459

8430
8431

8434
8435
8436
8437

30. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 128/17

Country

Company

Definitive
duty
(%)

Taric
additional
code

Singapore

(cid:190) Matsushita

Graphic

Communication

7,7

8438

Taiwan

Systems (S) Pte Ltd

(cid:190) Kinpo Electronics, Inc.
(cid:190) Sampo Corporation

Thailand

(cid:190) Cal-Comp Electronics (Thailand) Co., Ltd

6,0
35,8

10,4

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 falling within the weight
and size criteria as provided for in Article 1, or being portable fax machines to be used
only in combination with a mobile telephone set, are not covered by this 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.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal
of the European Communities.

Article 4

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

Done at Luxembourg, 27 April 1998.

For the Council

The President

R. COOK