Council Regulation (EC) No 1900/2001 of 27 September 2001 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: 2001-09-27
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Japan, anti-dumping duty, import, originating product, recording equipment, television

29.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 261/3

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1900/2001

of 27 September 2001

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 Community (1), and in
particular Article 11(3) thereof,

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

(4)

Whereas:

A. PROCEDURE

1. Previous investigations

(1)

(2)

(3)

In April 1994, further to an anti-dumping investigation
initiated in March 1993 (the original investigation), the
Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1015/94 (2) (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.

In October 1997, further to an investigation (the anti-
to Article 12 of
absorption investigation) pursuant
Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (the Basic Regula-
tion), the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1952/97 (3),
raised the rates of the definitive anti-dumping duty for
two companies concerned, namely for Sony Corporation
and Ikegami Tsushinki & Co Ltd to 108,3 % and
200,3 % respectively.

In April 1999 (4), 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
recurrence of dumping and injury.
continuation or
Therefore, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 2042/
2000 (5)
(the present definitive Regulation) reimposed
the definitive anti-dumping duties found in the original

(5)

(6)

(7)

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation

(EC) No 2238/2000 (OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2).

(8)

(2) OJ L 111, 30.4.1994, p. 106.
(3) OJ L 276, 9.10.1997, p. 20.
(4) Notice of initiation OJ C 119, 30.4.1999, p. 11.
(5) OJ L 244, 29.9.2000, p. 38. Regulation as last amended by Regula-

tion (EC) No 198/2001 (OJ L 30, 1.2.2001, p. 1).

investigation and as amended by the anti-absorption
investigation on imports of TCS originating in Japan.

2. Present investigation

(i) Initiation

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
limited to the aspects of
measures applicable to it,
dumping pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Basic Regula-
tion. 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 coun-
teract 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.

after

Having determined,
consulting the Advisory
Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initia-
the Commission
tion of a partial
interim review,
initiated an investigation (6)
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
the interim review and gave all parties directly
of
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-the-spot investigation at the premises
of the applicant, Hitachi Denshi Ltd, Tokyo, Japan and
the related importer Hitachi (Europe) GmbH, Rodgau,
Germany.

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

(6) Notice of initiation (OJ C 40, 12.2.2000, p. 5).

L 261/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.9.2001

B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE

PRODUCT

manufactured and sold by the applicant on the domestic
market of the exporting country.

1. Product under consideration

(15)

(9)

(10)

The product under investigation is the same as in the
original

investigation.

The products under consideration are television camera
(TCS) currently classified under CN codes
systems
ex 8537 10 99,
ex 8537 10 91,
ex 8525 30 90,
ex 8543 89 95,
ex 8529 90 88,
ex 8529 90 81,
ex 8528 21 14, ex 8528 21 16 and ex 8528 21 90
originating in Japan.

(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,

(16)

— an operational control panel

for camera
control (i.e. for colour adjustment lens opening or
iris) of single cameras,

(OCP)

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

(12) Above TCS parts are hereinafter referred to as ‘TCS
components’ or ‘components’. Each component exists in
different models.

(13)

Products not covered by the 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)

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

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 both conform with worldwide applic-
able industry standards. These products also have the
same applications and uses,
they consequently have
similar physical and technical characteristics, are inter-
changeable and compete with each other. Therefore,
TCS manufactured by the applicant and sold domesti-
cally as well as in the Community and TCS manufac-
tured and sold by the Community industry in the
Community market are alike within the meaning of
Article 1(4) of the Basic Regulation.

C. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OF DUMPING

1. Preliminary remarks

export

realised only four

The investigation has shown that during the IP, the
to the
applicant
Community. The volume of TCS exported represented
less than 10 % of the volume exported by it during the
original
approximately
EUR 350 000 in value. Furthermore, all TCS were
resold by the related importer to the same customer, a
broadcast company (user) in the Community.

represented

sales

only

and

IP

(17) Despite the fact that export sales volume was not repres-
entative and for the sake of completeness, the Commis-
sion carried out an investigation into the ‘likelihood of
continuation of dumping’
(see recitals 18 to 46).
However, and because of this unrepresentative volume,
only the findings regarding the ‘likelihood of recurrence
of dumping’ (see recitals 49 to 61) 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
to the
the product
export
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.

concerned

sales of

29.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 261/5

(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 compar-
able 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
in question.
independent customers of
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).

the model

to this investigation,

(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
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 posi-
tion 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 compo-
nents.

(22)

The investigation revealed however that the company
used internal price lists reflecting the values of the indi-
vidual 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. Further-
more, the allocation method on the basis of cost of
manufacture did not appear to be historically utilised by
the company.

could however be corrected on the basis of the findings
of the on-the-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, irres-
pective 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
factors
number of different models and variety of
affecting them which would have implied numerous
adjustments, which would have to be based on esti-
mates.

(27)

(28)

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.

that

sales

volume was

The actual domestic SG&A expenses of the applicant
were considered reliable, due to the fact
the
representative when
domestic
compared to the volume of
its export sales to the
Community. The domestic profit margin was deter-
mined on the basis of the applicant's domestic sales
made in the ordinary course of trade. In this regard it
the applicant's profitable sales
was established that
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.

(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 recalculated taking into
consideration the
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

corrected turnover. Moreover,

the domestic sales price of

(29) Given the above, for one TCS model sold for export to
the Community normal value was established on the
the comparable
basis of
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.

L 261/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.9.2001

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)

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 resale 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 Commis-
sion 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
the Commission considered that a profit
available,
margin of 5 % was
function
performed by the related importer. The same profit
margin was used in the original
investigation for the
purpose of constructing the export price.

reasonable

the

for

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
export price was
with the Basic Regulation,
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 meth-
odology.

the

(34)

to Article 11(10) of

Pursuant
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.

(35)

The evidence submitted which should have demon-
strated 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
sufficiently
had to establish whether
these prices
i.e. no
IP,
increased in comparison to the original
dumping is taking 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 deter-
mine 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)

in accordance with Article 11(10)

the
Consequently,
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 recitals 49 to 57).

29.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 261/7

4. Comparison

(39)

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,
loading and ancil-
lary cost as well as credit cost and warranties, affecting
price comparability in accordance to Article 2(10) of the
Basic Regulation.

insurance, handling,

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 the 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.

(i) Level of trade

(ii) Sponsor fee

(40)

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 normal value. In support of this argument the appli-
cant claimed that, when 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 adjust-
ment 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 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.

customers, namely end-users. The

(41) No material difference in the levels of trade between the
domestic and the Community market was found.
In
both markets the product was resold to the same group
investigation
of
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 automati-
cally entitle the exporter to an adjustment. In conclu-
sion, 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.

(45)

from the

In certain cases, the applicant sold TCS on the domestic
it would in return
market under the condition that
purchase
customer
space
advertising
concerned. It was claimed to adjust the normal value
accordingly by the amount paid to the customer for the
to Article
purchase of advertising space, pursuant
2(10)(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.

5. Dumping margin

(46)

For the purpose of calculating the dumping margin and
in accordance with 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,
ex-factory weighted average
normal value per model was compared with the ex-
factory weighted average export price for each corre-
sponding TCS model at the same level of trade.

the

(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.

(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

D. LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF DUMPING

(49)

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

L 261/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.9.2001

(50)

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
investigation and in some

level as in the original
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 compar-
ison 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.

(ii) The normal values remained at least at the same level as
in the original investigation and in some cases they even
increased

(54) As already mentioned, 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 estab-
lish 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 view-
finder, 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 investi-
gations was constructed on the basis of the cost of
production (with exception of one model), the Commis-
sion 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 tenden-
tiously higher
the models
than the unit cost
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 there-
fore not be established.

for

(iii) Export prices remain unlikely at their current level

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

(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 main-
tained 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 recitals 18 to 47), a significant dumping margin
would reappear should the measures be repealed because
it can reasonably 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

29.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 261/9

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.

(iv) The applicant has the infrastructure in the Community to

raise its sales

The infrastructure to import and distribute TCS into the
Community is available to the applicant. Two subsidia-
ries are located in the Community, which both dealt
with the imports and resales of TCS on the Community
market during the original IP. While, one of the subsi-
diaries ceased importing TCS from Japan after the impo-
sition of definitive measures,
there is no reason to
believe it could not easily restart such activities.

(v) Conclusions

It follows from the above that the alleged structural and
lasting change in circumstances leading to a decrease of
the dumping margin could not be established. Further-
more, 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.

Considering the above, it is most likely that, should the
anti-dumping measures be removed or reduced, a signifi-
cantly 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.

(57)

(58)

(59)

(60)

it was concluded that according to Article
Therefore,
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 origin-
ating 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
ex 8537 10 99,
codes
ex 8529 90 81,
ex 8543 89 95,
ex 8529 90 88,
ex 8528 21 14, ex 8528 21 16 and ex 8528 21 90 origin-
ating in Japan,

is hereby terminated.

ex 8525 30 90,

ex 8537 10 91,

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 27 September 2001.

For the Council

The President

M. VERWILGHEN