Proposal for a Council Regulation terminating the anti-dumping review concerning the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of television camera systems originating in Japan by Council Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000
Date: 2001-09-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Japan, anti-dumping duty, import, recording equipment, television

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 5.9.2001
COM(2001) 504 final

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

terminating the anti-dumping review concerning the definitive anti-dumping measures
imposed on imports of television camera systems originating in Japan by Council
Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000

(presented by the Commission)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

In 1994, by Regulation (EC) No 1015/94 (as subsequently amended)1 the Council imposed
definitive anti-dumping duties on television camera systems originating in Japan, which were
confirmed in September 2000, further to an investigation according to Article 11(2) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped
imports from countries not members of the European Community2 (expiry review). The
present interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 was initiated
on 12 February 2000 further to a request lodged by the Japanese exporting producer of
television camera systems, Hitachi Denshi Ltd, as far as the anti-dumping measures
applicable to it are concerned. These are currently set at 52,7% of the cif import price at the
Community border. The review was limited to the aspects of dumping.

As far as the likelihood of continuation of dumping is concerned, an investigation was carried
the premises of the applicant and its related company in the Community. The
out at
comparison of the export price with the normal value revealed that dumping was still taking
place. The dumping margin found amounted to 65,8%.

As far as the likelihood of recurrence of dumping is concerned, should the measures be
repealed, the investigation showed that the exporting producer concerned had significant
spare capacity and could easily increase its production. Furthermore, the normal values of the
original investigation on one hand, and of the present investigation on the other hand were
basically the same. Moreover, it can be reasonably expected that the export prices would very
likely not remain at their current level but decrease significantly should the measures be
repealed. Finally, the exporting producer concerned has the necessary infrastructure in the
Community to raise significantly its export sales. On this basis, it was concluded that the need
for continued imposition of measures was warranted. Given the low export volume during the
investigation period, the measures should however be maintained at the current level.

Member States were consulted and were in favour of the Commission’s proposal. No Member
State objected or abstained.

It is consequently proposed to terminate the interim review and to maintain the anti-dumping
duty level currently applicable to Hitachi Denshi Ltd. and approve the publication of the
attached Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Community.

1

2

OJ L 111, 30.4.1994, p.106 as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 176/2000 (OJ L 22, 27.1.2000,
p.29).
OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p.1. as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000 (OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p.2).

2

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

terminating the anti-dumping review concerning the definitive anti-dumping measures
imposed on imports of television camera systems originating in Japan by Council
Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community3, and in
particular Article 11(3) thereof,

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

Whereas:

A. PROCEDURE

1. Previous investigations

(1)

(2)

(3)

3

4

5

6

7

In April 1994, further to an anti-dumping investigation initiated in March 1993 ("the
original investigation"), the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1015/944 ("the original
definitive Regulation"),
imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
television camera systems ("TCS") originating in Japan. The original investigation
covered the period from 1 July 1991 to 31 December 1992.

to Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/965

In October 1997, further to an investigation ("the anti-absorption investigation")
(the "Basic
pursuant
Regulation"), the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1952/976, raised the rates of the
two companies concerned, namely for Sony
definitive anti-dumping duty for
Corporation and Ikegami Tsushinki & Co Ltd. to 108.3% and 200.3% respectively.

In April 19997, and further to the request of the Community industry of TCS, the
Commission initiated an expiry review according to Article 11(2) of the Basic
Regulation (“the expiry review”). As a result of that review, it was concluded that the
expiry of the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed would be likely to lead to a
the Council, by
continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Therefore,

OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p.1. as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000 (OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p.2).
OJ L 111, 30.4.1994, p.106.
OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p.1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000 (OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p.2).
OJ L 276, 9.10.1997, p. 20.
Notice of initiation OJ C 119, 30.4.1999, p.11.

3

Regulation (EC) No 2042/20008 (“the present definitive Regulation”) re-imposed the
definitive anti-dumping duties found in the original investigation and as amended by
the anti-absorption investigation on imports of TCS originating in Japan.

2. Present investigation

(i) Initiation

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

On 4 September 1999, the Japanese exporting producer of TCS, Hitachi Denshi Ltd
(“applicant”), lodged a request for an interim review concerning the anti-dumping
measures applicable to it, limited to the aspects of dumping pursuant Article 11(3) of
the Basic Regulation. The request alleged that the continued imposition of the anti-
dumping duties on exports by the applicant to the Community was no longer necessary
to counteract dumping since its normal value was substantially lower and its export
prices substantially higher than those established in the original investigation leading
to the existing measures.

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence
existed for the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission initiated an
investigation9 limited in scope to the examination of dumping as far as the applicant
was concerned.

(ii) Investigation

The Commission officially advised the representatives of the exporting country and
the applicant of the initiation of the interim review and gave all parties directly
concerned the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a
hearing. The Commission also sent a questionnaire to the applicant and its related
importer in the Community, to which both replied within the time limits set.

The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the
determination of dumping and carried out an on-spot investigation at the premises of
the applicant, Hitachi Denshi Ltd, Tokyo, Japan and the related importer Hitachi
(Europe) GmbH, Rodgau, Germany.

(8)

The investigation of dumping covered the period of 1 July 1998 to 31 December 1999
(“investigation period” or “IP).

B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE PRODUCT

1. Product under consideration

(9)

The product under investigation is the same as in the original investigation.

(10)

The product under consideration are television camera systems (TCS) currently
classified under CN-codes ex 8525 3090, ex 8537 10 91, ex 8537 10 99,
ex 8529 90 81, ex 8529 9088, ex 8543 8995, ex 8528 21 14, ex 8528 2116 and
ex 8528 2190 originating in Japan.

8

9

OJ L 244, 29.9.2000, p. 38 as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 198/2001 (OJ L 30, 1.2.2001, p.1).
Notice of initiation OJ C 40, 12.2.2000, p.5.

4

(11) As set out in the present definitive Regulation, TCS may consist of the following parts,

imported either together or separately:

–

–

–

–

–

a camera head with three or more sensors (12 mm or more charge-coupled
pick-up devices) with more than 400 000 pixels each, which can be connected
to a rear adapter, and having a specification of the signal to noise ratio of 55 dB
or more at normal gain; either in one piece with the camera head and the
adapter in one housing, or separate;

a viewfinder (diagonal of 38 mm or more);

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

an operational control panel (OCP)
adjustment lens opening or iris) of single cameras;

for camera control (i.e.

for colour

a master control panel (MCP) or master set-up unit (MSU) with selected
camera indication, for the overview and for adjustment of several remote
cameras.

(12) Above TCS parts are hereinafter referred to “TCS components” or “components”.

Each component exists is different models.

(13)

Products not covered by the above definition are:

–

–

–

–

–

Lenses;

Video tape recorders;

Camera heads with the recording unit in the same, inseparable, housing;

Professional cameras which cannot be used for broadcast purposes;

Professional cameras listed in the Annex to the present definitive Regulation
(Taric additional code: 8786).

2. Like product

(14)

(15)

It was found that there were no basic differences in the physical and technical
characteristics and uses of the TCS manufactured by the applicant Japanese exporting
producer and sold in the Community, and the product manufactured and sold by the
applicant on the domestic market of the exporting country.

Furthermore, the product concerned manufactured by the applicant and sold in the
Community and the product manufactured and sold by the Community producers on
the Community market use the same basic technology and are both conform with
world-wide applicable industry standards. These products also have the same
applications and uses,
they consequently have similar physical and technical
characteristics, are interchangeable and compete with each other. Therefore, TCS
manufactured by the applicant and sold domestically as well as in the Community and
TCS manufactured and sold by the Community industry in the Community market are
alike within the meaning of Article 1 (4) of the Basic Regulation.

5

C. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OF DUMPING

1. Preliminary remarks

(16)

The investigation has shown that during the IP, the applicant realised only four export
sales to the Community. The volume of TCS exported represented less than 10% of
the volume exported by it during the original IP and represented only approximately
350.000 Euro in value. Furthermore, all TCS were resold by the related importer to the
same customer, a broadcast company (user) in the Community.

(17) Despite the fact that export sales volume was not representative and for the sake of
completeness, the Commission carried out an investigation into the “likelihood of
continuation of dumping” (see recital (18) to (46) below). However, and because of
this unrepresentative volume, only the findings regarding the “likelihood of recurrence
of dumping” (see recital (49) to (61) below) are decisive.

2. Normal value

(18) Normal value was established according to Article 2 of the Basic Regulation.
Therefore, the Commission first established whether the applicant’s total domestic
sales of TCS were representative in comparison with its total export sales of the
product concerned to the Community. In accordance with Article 2(2) of the Basic
Regulation, and since the total domestic sales volume exceeded 5% of the total export
sales volume to the Community, the applicant’s domestic sales of TCS were found to
be representative.

(19)

The Commission subsequently identified those models of TCS components sold
domestically that were identical or directly comparable to the models sold for export
to the Community. Three models sold by the applicant on its domestic market were
found to be directly comparable to models sold for export to the Community. For these
models, it was established that the domestic sales were sufficiently representative in
accordance with Article 2(2) of the Basic Regulation, i.e. the total sales volume of the
models concerned exceeded 5% of the sales volume of the comparable model exported
to the Community.

(20) An examination was also made as to whether the domestic sales of each TCS model
could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade, by establishing
the proportion of the profitable sales to independent customers of the model in
question. Domestic sales were considered profitable when the net sales value was
equal or above the calculated cost of production of each model concerned (“profitable
sales”).

(21) As far as the net sales prices of TCS are concerned, the investigation revealed that
TCS were sold as part of "packages" which included also other products not subject to
this investigation, like lenses, cables and tripods. Moreover, some of the products were
produced by the applicant itself while others had been purchased from other suppliers.
The applicant was not in a position to identify and deduct directly these components
from the net sales prices so an allocation method had to be found. The applicant
claimed that an allocation should be made to the product concerned on the basis of the
cost of manufacturing of the individual components.

6

(22)

The investigation revealed however that
the company used internal price lists
reflecting the values of the individual components. The prices indicated in these price
lists (reference or target prices) were used as a basis for the negotiation and the final
price of the package was established on the basis of these lists. It was therefore
considered that the allocation on the basis of the price list was the most appropriate
method to reflect the actual turnover of the individual components. Furthermore, the
allocation method on the basis of cost of manufacture did not appear to be historically
utilised by the company.

(23) As far as the cost of production is concerned, and in particular the selling, general and
administrative costs (“SG&A”), in cases where these were allocated to the sales of the
product concerned on the domestic market based on turnover, they had to be re-
calculated taking into consideration the corrected turnover. Moreover, a number of
deficiencies were found in terms of wrong allocation methods and exclusion of certain
costs directly linked to the sales of TCS. These deficiencies could however be
corrected on the basis of the findings of the on-spot verification.

(24)

The cost of production of each TCS model on the domestic market was compared to
its net domestic sales price. In cases where profitable sales of each model represented
80% or more of the total sales volume, the normal value was based on the actual
domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of
that model made during the IP, irrespective of whether all these sales were profitable
or not. In cases where profitable sales represented less than 80% but 10% or more of
the total sales volume, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated
as a weighted average of profitable sales only.

(25)

In cases where the volume of profitable sales of any TCS model represented less than
10% of the total sales volume, it was considered that this particular model was sold in
insufficient quantities for the domestic price to provide an appropriate basis for the
establishment of the normal value.

(26) Wherever domestic prices of a particular model sold by the applicant could not be
used, normal value had to be constructed instead of using domestic sales prices of
other TCS producers. This approach was selected in view of the absence of any
information concerning domestic sales prices of other TCS producers and due to the
number of different models and variety of factors affecting them which would have
implied numerous adjustments, which would have to be based on estimates.

(27) Consequently, normal value was constructed by adding to the manufacturing cost of
the exported models, adjusted where necessary, a reasonable percentage for SG&A
and a reasonable margin of profit.

(28)

The actual domestic SG&A expenses of the applicant were considered reliable, due to
the fact that the domestic sales volume was representative when compared to the
volume of its export sales to the Community. The domestic profit margin was
determined on the basis of the applicant’s domestic sales made in the ordinary course
of trade. In this regard it was established that
the applicant’s profitable sales
represented more than 10% of the total domestic sales volume of the product
concerned. Therefore, both the applicant’s own SG&A and profit were used for the
purpose of constructing the normal value.

7

(29) Given the above, for one TCS model sold for export to the Community normal value
was established on the basis of the domestic sales price of the comparable model sold
on the domestic market in accordance with Article 2(2) of the Basic Regulation. For
all other TCS models sold for export to the Community normal value was constructed
in accordance with Article 2(3) of the Basic Regulation.

3. Export price

(30) All export sales during the IP were made to a related importer in the Community and
the export price could therefore not be considered reliable. Consequently, the export
price of TCS had to be constructed in accordance with Article 2(9) of the Basic
Regulation, namely on the basis of the price at which the imported products were first
resold to an independent buyer.

(31)

(32)

(33)

(34)

In this regard, it was found that in some cases the resale prices reported for camera
heads included the resale price of certain other parts or accessories of TCS, which
were however not included in the sales price on the domestic market or were not even
within the definition of the product concerned. The reported re-sale prices had
therefore to be corrected accordingly.

In order to construct the export price, and in accordance with Article 2(9) of the Basic
Regulation, the Commission took as a basis the invoice value as charged by the related
importer to the independent customer, duly adjusted by all costs incurred between
importation and resale of the product concerned, as well as the inland freight, handling
and insurance cost
incurred on the domestic market of the exporting country.
Furthermore, the related importer’s own margin for SG&A and a reasonable profit
margin were deducted from the adjusted resale price. As regards, the SG&A, it was
found that travel expenses were not included and had thus to be added to the reported
costs. As regards the profit margin and in the absence of any other information
available, the Commission considered that a profit margin of 5% was reasonable for
the function performed by the related importer. The same profit margin was used in
the original investigation for the purpose of constructing the export price.

The applicant objected to the methodology used by the Commission and claimed that
SG&A should have been allocated to the turnover of TCS as booked in the accounts of
the related importer, i.e. excluding the anti-dumping duty. This had to be rejected. In
accordance with the Basic Regulation, the export price was constructed on the basis of
the prices paid or payable,
invoiced to the customer and paid by those in the
Community. SG&A were consistently allocated on these prices. The applicant could
not
indicate any valid reason which would have justified a departure from this
methodology.

Pursuant to Article 11(10) of the Basic Regulation, where it is decided to construct the
export price in accordance to Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation, the constructed
export price should be calculated with no deduction for the amount of anti-dumping
duties paid when conclusive evidence was provided that the duty is duly reflected in
the resale prices. In order to establish whether the anti-dumping duty was duly
reflected in the resale prices, the Commission took into account the two following
facts.

8

(35)

The evidence submitted which should have demonstrated that the anti-dumping duty
had been paid during the investigation period did not show whether the full amount of
the duty was indeed paid during the IP. Although the customs’ documents provided
showed that a certain amount of anti-dumping duty was paid during the IP, the
investigation revealed that the amount of duty paid did not cover the volume of units
found to have been imported and resold during the IP.

(36) After disclosure, the applicant contested these findings and claimed that the anti-
dumping duty was fully reflected in the resale-prices in the Community. This claim
was however not supported by any evidence and had to be rejected for the reasons
detailed in recital (37).

(37)

In order to determine whether the anti-dumping duty was duly reflected in the resale
prices, the Commission had to establish whether these prices sufficiently increased in
comparison to the original IP, i.e. no dumping is taken place anymore. Due to the fact
that the TCS technology has substantially developed since the original IP seven years
ago, direct successor models of TCS components produced and sold during the
original IP could not be identified. Therefore, in order to determine whether the anti-
dumping duty applicable was reflected in the resale prices or not, the Commission
compared the adjusted resale price of the related importer to a target price per TCS
model exported which was based on the duly adjusted normal value established for
these models. It was found that on an overall basis the resale prices were substantially
below the calculated target price.

(38) Consequently, in accordance with Article 11(10) the amount of the anti-dumping duty
had to be deducted from the constructed export price. It should however be noted that
even no deduction or only a partial deduction of the anti-dumping duty would not have
changed the conclusion that dumping was still taking place, albeit at a much lower
level. In any case and more importantly that would not have changed the overall
outcome of the present review in particular in view of the findings as regards the
likelihood of recurrence of dumping should the measures be repealed (see recital (49)
to (57) below).

(39)

(40)

4. Comparison

For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export
price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences in
transportation, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary cost as well as credit cost
and warranties, affecting price comparability in accordance to Article 2(10) of the
Basic Regulation.

(i) Level of trade

this argument

In support of

The applicant claimed an adjustment for differences in the level of trade on the basis
that the reconstructed export price would be at a different level of trade from the
the applicant claimed that, when
normal value.
constructing the export price according to Article 2(10) of the Basic Regulation,
certain costs incurred by the related importer in the Community were deducted from
the resale price charged to the first independent customer. For that reason and given
that on the domestic market all sales were made on the same level of trade, and that
therefore an adjustment could not be quantified otherwise, the applicant claimed that
in order to obtain a normal value at a comparable level of trade, the expenses incurred

9

by the applicant’s sales branches on the domestic market for the same functions
performed should be deducted from the normal value, pursuant to Article 2(10)(d) of
the Basic Regulation.

(41) No material difference in the levels of trade between the domestic and the Community
market was found. In both markets the product was re-sold to the same group of
customers, i.e. end users. The investigation revealed that the same pricing policy was
used in the export and domestic market and that no information or evidence was
submitted indicating that a distinction was made between the domestic and export
market when deciding on prices. The fact
that certain costs were deducted to
reconstruct the export price does not per se warrant a similar deduction from the
normal value. The fact that an exporter incurs certain costs on the domestic market due
to its distribution structure which are also incurred at the export level does not
automatically entitle the exporter to an adjustment. In conclusion, the applicant could
not demonstrate that the price comparability was affected by consistent and distinct
differences in functions and prices of the seller for the different levels of trade in the
domestic market and in the exporting country.

(42) Notwithstanding this, the Commission services also carried out a function analysis and
it was found that the differences, if any, of the functions performed by the applicant’s
domestic sales branches and those of the related importer were negligible. In this
context, Hitachi submitted contradicting and misleading information, since in contrast
to what was reported, only a minor part of Hitachi’s sales branches were actually
involved in the sales of TCS during the IP.

(43) Although the applicant contested above findings,

it did not submit any new

information which could have altered the Commission’s conclusions in this respect.

(44) Consequently the claim for an adjustment for differences in the level of trade had to be

rejected.

(ii) Sponsor fee

(45)

In certain cases, the applicant sold TCS on the domestic market under the condition
that it would in return purchase advertising space from the customer concerned. It was
claimed to adjust the normal value accordingly by the amount paid to the customer for
the purchase of advertising space, pursuant
(k) of the Basic
Regulation. This had to be rejected, given that the applicant could not show whether
and to what extent the sponsor fee paid was related to sales of TCS and how this
affected price comparability as required by the Basic Regulation. In particular, it could
not be demonstrated that customers consistently paid different prices on the domestic
market because of the difference claimed.

to Article 2(10)

5. Dumping margin

(46)

the purpose of calculating the dumping margin and in accordance with
For
Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation, the Commission applied the same methodology
as in the original investigation. According to Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation, the
ex-factory weighted average normal value per model was compared with the ex-
factory weighted average export price for each corresponding TCS model at the same
level of trade.

10

(47)

The comparison showed the existence of dumping. The dumping margin expressed as
a percentage of the cif import price at the Community border is:

Hitachi Denshi Ltd:

65,8 %.

(48)

It was therefore concluded that significant dumping was found to exist albeit in small
quantities.

D. LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF DUMPING

(49)

(50)

The likelihood of recurrence of dumping in significant quantities, should the measures
in question be removed, was examined.

In this regard, the request was based on the grounds that due to a change in TCS
technologies from analogue to digital technology, the cost and price structure of TCS
has significantly changed in comparison to those prevailing during the original IP. The
applicant claimed that as a consequence, the cost of production and the constructed
normal value had significantly decreased. It was further claimed that since the changes
have been of a structural nature, the current situation is likely to be lasting.

(51)

The investigation did not confirm the above allegations. On the contrary, it was found
that
there was a likelihood of recurrence of dumping should the anti-dumping
measures be repealed. This conclusion was based on the findings of

–

–

–

–

significant spare capacity

normal values which remained at least at the same level as in the original
investigation and in some cases they even increased

likely decreases of export prices

the applicant's existing sales infrastructure in the Community.

(i) The applicant has significant spare capacity

(52) As far as production capacity and capacity utilisation is concerned, the investigation
showed that the applicant almost halved its production volume of TCS in comparison
to the original IP, while the capacity remained approximately the same. Production
capacity during the current IP was thus only used at half. Production volume and
capacity use remained stable at these low levels since then; i.e. after the imposition of
the definitive anti-dumping duty. In this context, it should be noted that the applicant
was able to compensate part of its lost exports to the Community by exports to other
third countries.

(53)

Further to disclosure, the applicant claimed that the assessment of the Commission as
regards production capacity and utilisation did not take into account that the available
assembly lines are also used for the production of other video or broadcast products.
However, this argument was contradictory to what was explained in the reply to the
questionnaire and during the on-spot verification visit, i.e. that the production capacity
as reported was calculated on the basis of the maximum of camera heads produced
over a five year period, not taking into consideration other products. Other TCS

11

elements were reported as a multiple or fraction thereof. The argument of the applicant
had therefore to be rejected.

(ii) The normal values remained at
investigation and in some cases they even increased

least at

the same level as in the original

(54) As already mentioned above, the TCS models produced and sold during the original IP
were technically different from those produced and sold during the current IP. A direct
comparison between those models without an important number of adjustments taking
into account their differences did therefore not appear to be possible. In particular as
regards camera heads, by far the most important and complex component of a TCS no
direct successor models could be identified. In order to establish the development of
the normal value between the original and current investigation, the Commission had
therefore to rely on a comparison of successor models of other components of the TCS
such as the camera control unit, the operational control panel or the viewfinder, which
was considered as an appropriate basis since they constitute still a fairly representative
part of a TCS, i.e. approximately up to 50% of the value of a TCS. The comparison of
the normal values as established in the relevant investigations revealed that the normal
values remained basically the same or even increased in the current investigation
period.

(55)

Furthermore and since the normal value in both investigations were constructed on the
basis of the cost of production (with exception of one model),
the Commission
analysed the unit costs of certain TCS components which showed that the unit cost for
the different models produced and sold during the current IP were tendentiously higher
than the unit cost for the models produced and sold during the original IP. A structural
difference in the cost of production resulting in a lower normal value, as claimed by
the applicant, could therefore not be established.

(iii) Export prices remain unlikely at their current level

(56) With regard to the export price side it should be noted that, provided that the anti-
dumping duty is properly paid it accounts for roughly one third of resale price charged
in the Community. No convincing reasons have been found that the current price level
will be maintained should the anti-dumping measures be repealed. Even if the anti-
dumping duty were not to be deducted as a cost in the context of the dumping
determination (see recital (18) to (47) above), a significant dumping margin would
reappear should the measures be repealed because it can reasonable be expected that
the applicant would lower its resale prices in order to gain higher sales volumes on the
Community market. Current export sales to the Community only represent a fraction
of the original sales and were only made to one customer and it should be noted that
the applicant has significant spare capacities. Thus, there is no evidence to suggest that
the current level of export prices is sustainable. Given that the applicant was only able
to sell during a considerable time-span an insignificant quantity and only to one
customer, it can only be concluded that the applicant was not in a position to re-
establish itself in the Community market with the export prices shown in these few
transactions.

12

(iv) The applicant has the infrastructure in the Community to rise its sales

(57)

The infrastructure to import and distribute TCS into the Community is available to the
applicant. Two subsidiaries are located in the Community, which both dealt with the
imports and re-sales of TCS on the Community market during the original IP. While,
one of the subsidiaries ceased importing TCS from Japan after the imposition of
definitive measures, there is no reason to believe it could not easily re-start such
activities.

(v) Conclusions

(58)

It results from the above that the alleged structural and lasting change in circumstances
leading to a decrease of the dumping margin could not be established. Furthermore,
the applicant has continued to import at dumped prices (albeit
in insignificant
quantities) and also has the potential to increase its production and exports to the
Community at significantly dumped prices.

(59) Considering the above, it is most likely that, should the anti-dumping measures be
removed or reduced, a significantly increased quantity of TCS will be exported to the
Community. The export prices would in all likelihood be at or even above the level
found in the previous and current investigation and thus there would be substantial
dumping at similar levels to those found in the original and the current investigation.

(60)

Therefore, it was concluded that according to Article 11(3) of the Basic Regulation the
need for continued imposition of measures at the existing level as far as the applicant
is concerned was warranted.

E. INJURY AND COMMUNITY INTEREST

(61) Given that the request for a review by the applicant in the current investigation was
limited to an examination and possible revision of the dumping margin applicable to it
under Article 11(3) of the Basic Regulation, it was not necessary to carry out an
examination of injury or Community interest.

F. CONCLUSIONS

(62) On the basis of the above, it is concluded that the interim review should be terminated
and the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 2024/2000 on imports
of the product concerned originating in Japan should remain in force, without
changing the level of the measures for the applicant.

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The review of anti-dumping measures concerning the imports of television camera systems,
currently classifiable under CN-codes ex 8525 3090, ex 8537 10 91, ex 8537 10 99,
ex 8529 90 81, ex 8529 9088, ex 8543 8995, ex 8528 21 14, ex 8528 2116 and ex 8528 2190
originating in Japan, is hereby terminated.

13

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

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels,

For the Council
The President

14