Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2605/2000 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain electronic weighing scales (REWS) originating, inter alia, in the People’s Republic of China
Date: 2005-04-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, customs duties, electronic device, measuring equipment

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 15.4.2005 
COM(2005) 144 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2605/2000 imposing definitive anti-dumping 
duties on imports of certain electronic weighing scales (REWS) originating, inter alia, in 
the People’s Republic of China 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

In August 2004, the Commission announced, by Regulation (EC) No 1408/2004, the initiation 
of  a  ‘new  exporter’  review  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2605/2000  imposing  definitive 
anti-dumping  duties  on  imports  of  certain  electronic  weighing  scales  (‘REWS’)  originating, 
inter  alia,  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China.  This  Regulation  also  repealed  the  duty  with 
regard  to  imports  from  Shanghai  Excell  M&E  Enterprise  Co.,  Ltd.  and  Shanghai  Adeptech 
Precision  Co.,  Ltd.  (the  ‘applicant’),  the  two  related  Chinese  companies  that  requested  the 
initiation of the review, making these imports subject to registration. 

According to the findings of the current investigation, the applicant does not meet the criteria 
for  market  economy  treatment,  but  qualifies  for  individual  treatment  and  should  receive  an 
individual duty rate of 52,6%. 

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation, in view 
of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union by 3 May 2005 at the latest. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2605/2000 imposing definitive anti-dumping 
duties on imports of certain electronic weighing scales (REWS) originating, inter alia, in 
the People’s Republic of China 

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 Community1 (‘the basic 
Regulation’), and in particular Article 11(4) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. MEASURES IN FORCE 

(1) 

The measures currently in force on imports into the Community of certain electronic 
weighing scales (‘REWS’) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’) are 
definitive  anti-dumping  duties  imposed  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2605/20002. 
Pursuant to the same Regulation, anti-dumping duties were also imposed on imports of 
REWS originating in Taiwan and the Republic of Korea. 

B. CURRENT INVESTIGATION 

1. 

Request for a review 

(2) 

After  the  imposition  of  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  on  imports  of  REWS 
originating in the PRC, the Commission received a request to initiate a ‘new exporter’ 
review  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  2605/2000,  pursuant  to  Article  11(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation,  from  two  related  Chinese  companies,  Shanghai  Excell  M&E  Enterprise 
Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Adeptech Precision Co., Ltd. (the ‘applicant’). The applicant 
claimed that it was not related to any of the exporting producers in the PRC subject to 
the anti-dumping measures in force with regard to REWS. Furthermore, it claimed that 
it had not exported REWS to the Community during the original investigation period 
(‘the original IP’, i.e. the period from 1 September 1998 to 31 August 1999), but had 
started to export REWS to the Community thereafter. 

1 

2 

OJ  L  56,  6.3.1996,  p.  1.  Regulation  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  461/2004  (OJ  L  77, 
13.3.2004, p. 12). 
OJ L 301, 30.11.2000, p. 42. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

Initiation of a ‘new exporter’ review 

(3) 

(4) 

The Commission examined the evidence submitted by the applicant and considered it 
sufficient to justify the initiation of a review in accordance with Article 11(4) of the 
basic  Regulation.  After  consultation  of  the  Advisory  Committee  and  after  the 
Community  industry  concerned  had  been  given  the  opportunity  to  comment,  the 
Commission  initiated,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1408/20043,  a  review  of  Regulation 
(EC) No 2605/2000 with regard to the applicant and commenced its investigation. 

Pursuant to the Commission Regulation initiating the review, the anti-dumping duty of 
30,7% imposed by Regulation (EC) No 2605/2000 on imports of REWS produced by 
the  applicant  was  repealed.  Simultaneously,  pursuant  to  Article  14(5)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, customs authorities were directed to take appropriate steps to register such 
imports. 

3. 

Product concerned 

(5) 

The product concerned by the current review  is the same as  that  in  the investigation 
that led to the imposition of the measures in force on imports of REWS originating in 
the PRC (‘original investigation’), i.e. electronic weighing scales for use in the retail 
trade, having a maximum weighing capacity not exceeding 30 kg, which incorporate a 
digital display of the weight, unit price and price to be paid (whether or not including a 
means  of  printing  this  data),  normally  declared  within  CN  code  ex  8423  81  50 
(TARIC code 8423 81 50 10) and originating in the PRC. 

4. 

Parties concerned 

(6) 

(7) 

The  Commission  officially  advised  the  applicant  and  the  representatives  of  the 
exporting  country  of  the  initiation  of  the  review.  Interested  parties  were  given  the 
opportunity to make their views known in writing and to be heard. 

The  Commission  also  sent  a  market  economy  treatment  (‘MET’)  claim  form  and  a 
questionnaire  to  the  applicant  and  received  replies  within  the  deadlines  set  for  that 
purpose. The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary 
for  the  determination  of  dumping,  including  the  MET  claim,  and  a  verification  visit 
was carried out at the premises of the applicant. 

5. 

Investigation period 

(8) 

The  investigation  of  dumping  covered  the  period  from  1  July  2003  to  30  June  2004 
(‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’). 

C. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 

1. 

‘New exporter’ qualification 

(9) 

The investigation confirmed that the applicant had not exported the product concerned 
during  the  original  IP  and  that  it  had  begun  exporting  to  the  Community  after  this 
period. 

3 

OJ L 256, 3.8.2004, p. 8. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(10)  Furthermore, the applicant was able to demonstrate that it was not related to any of the 
exporters or producers in the PRC which are subject to the anti-dumping measures in 
force on imports of REWS originating in the PRC. 

(11) 

In this context, it is confirmed that the applicant should be considered a ‘new exporter’ 
in accordance with Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation. 

2. 

Market economy treatment (‘MET’) 

(12)  Pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(b)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  in  anti-dumping  investigations 
concerning  imports  originating  in  the  PRC,  normal  value  shall  be  determined  in 
accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those producers which were 
found  to  meet  the  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  2(7)(c)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  i.e. 
where  it  is  shown  that  market  economy  conditions  prevail  in  respect  of  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  the  like  product.  These  criteria  are  set  out  in  a  summarised 
form below: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Business decisions are made in response to market signals, without significant 
State interference, and costs reflect market values; 

Firms have one clear set of basic accounting records which are independently 
audited in line with international accounting standards (‘IAS’) and are applied 
for all purposes; 

No distortions carried over from the non-market economy system; 

Bankruptcy and property laws guarantee stability and legal certainty; 

Exchange rate conversions are carried out at market rates. 

(13)  The applicant requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation. It is 
the Community’s consistent practice to examine whether a group of related companies 
as  a  whole  fulfils  the  conditions  for  MET.  Therefore,  Shanghai  Adeptech  Precision 
Co.,  Ltd  and  Shanghai  Excell  M&E  Enterprise  Co.,  Ltd  were  invited  to  complete  a 
MET  claim  form.  Both  companies  replied  to  the  MET  claim  form  within  the  given 
deadline. 

(14)  The Commission sought all information deemed necessary and verified all information 
submitted in the MET applications at the premises of the companies in question. 

(15) 

It was considered that MET should not be granted to the applicant on the basis that the 
two related Chinese companies did not meet the first two criteria laid down in Article 
2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation. 

(16)  As  regards  the  first  criterion,  the  Articles  of  Association  of  one  of  the  two  related 
Chinese producers allow its State-controlled partner, which does not hold any capital 
of the company and was presented as performing the functions of a mere landlord, to 
claim  compensation  if  the  company  did  not  achieve  its  production,  sales  and  profit 
targets.  Moreover,  the  approval  of  the  local  authorities  was  necessary  to  recognise 
buildings as fixed assets and to start amortising the land use rights. Furthermore, one 
of the Chinese producers had never paid rent for the land use rights and benefited from 
bank guarantees provided free of charge by a third party. Under these circumstances 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
and in view of the fact that the company could not show that its business decisions are 
made  in  response  to  market  signals,  reflecting  market  values  and  without  significant 
State-interference, it was found that this criterion is not met. 

(17)  Concerning  the  second  criterion,  the  applicant  was  found  to  be  in  breach  of  certain 
IAS. As regards IAS 1, the applicant breached three fundamental accounting concepts: 
the accrual basis of accounting, prudence and substance over form. The applicant also 
failed  to  comply  with  IAS  2  on  inventories,  buildings  were  not  recognised  and 
depreciated in line with IAS 16 and the land use rights were not amortised according 
to IAS 38. Finally, IAS 21 on the effect of changes in foreign exchange rates and IAS 
36 on the impairment of assets were also breached. The fact that the audit reports were 
silent  as  regards  most  of  the  breaches  of  the  IAS  indicates  that  the  audit  was  not 
carried out in accordance with IAS. 

(18) 

It  should  also  be  underlined  that  the  auditor’s  report  concerning  the  financial  year 
2001  of  one  of  the  two  related  Chinese  producers  had  already  noted  the  problems 
regarding inventories, while the auditor’s reports concerning the financial years 2002 
and 2003 noted that the company had not established the relevant policy on provisions 
for  impairment  of  assets.  These  were  thus  recurrent  problems  that  have  been  raised 
year after year by the auditor to no avail. This is another element that clearly indicates 
that the accounts of the applicant are not reliable. 

(19)  The applicant and the Community industry were given an opportunity to comment on 
the above findings. After consultation of the Advisory Committee, the applicant was 
informed  that  MET  could  not  be  granted.  The  Community  industry  made  no 
comments.  The  applicant  claimed  that  there  was  no  State  interference,  that  costs 
reflected  market  values  and  that  the  above-mentioned  IAS  were  not  applicable  in  its 
case. 

(20) 

In  particular,  one  of  the  two  related  Chinese  producers  claimed  that  a  compensation 
claim  relating  to  the  performance  of  a  company  could  normally  be  found  in  a  joint 
venture agreement under market economy conditions. The other producer considered 
that it was normal that a company enjoyed a rent free period during the construction 
phase  of  a  project.  Finally,  it  considered  that  depreciation  of  buildings  and 
amortisation  of  land  use  rights  were  not  a  company-specific  issue  and  there  was  not 
any benefit accruing to the Chinese authorities. 

(21)  These  arguments  had  to  be  rejected.  Firstly,  although  the  mere  existence  of  a  joint 
venture  such  as  the  one  in  the  current  investigation  does  not  indicate  State 
interference,  the  Articles  of  Association  contain  mechanisms  that  allow  the  State  to 
interfere.  In  particular,  the  right  of  the  Chinese  partner  (i.e.  the  local  authorities)  to 
claim compensation is not limited to the case where rent is not paid. The rights of the 
Chinese partner are thus wider than those of a mere landlord. Secondly, rent was due 
to  the  State  for  the  first  years  of  operation.  Any  exemption  from  such  payment 
obligation should have been foreseen in the contract. Finally, the fact that the applicant 
admitted  that  depreciation  of  buildings  and  amortisation  of  land  use  rights  are  not 
determined by the companies themselves reinforces the conclusion that the State could 
significantly interfere in the business decisions of the applicant. 

(22)  The applicant’s main argument on criterion 2 was that the IAS have not been adopted 
by  the  accounting  profession  in  the  PRC.  The  applicant  admitted  that  they  were  not 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
followed,  but  considered  that  the  IAS  mentioned  by  the  Commission  were  not 
applicable in the IP. However, it was found that all the IAS provisions set out in recital 
(17) above were in force during the IP. 

(23) 

In its comments to the final disclosure, the applicant argued that the determination not 
to grant MET to the two related Chinese producers was not made within three months 
of  the  initiation  of  the  investigation  as  provided  for  in  Article  2(7)(c)  of  the  basic 
Regulation.  According  to  the  applicant,  this  had  an  influence  on  the  Commission’s 
decision not to verify the information provided by some of its related companies and 
by the producer in the analogue country, which had a prejudicial effect on the outcome 
of the investigation. 

(24)  As  regards  the  argument  concerning  the  three-month  time  limit,  the  non-respect  of 
such  time  limit  does  not  entail  any  apparent  legal  consequences.  It  should  be  noted 
that  the  MET  claims  received  were  deficient  and  required  a  number  of  substantial 
clarifications  and  additional  information  which  delayed  the  investigation.  The  two 
related  Chinese  exporting  producers  were  given,  on  their  own  request,  extensions  of 
the time limits to submit these clarifications and additional information. Furthermore, 
as they could not receive the verification team at the beginning of October 2004, the 
verification  visits  only  took  place  in  the  second  half  of  that  month,  thus  further 
delaying  the  MET  determination.  It  was,  therefore,  concluded  that  a  valid  MET 
determination could be made or adopted also after the three month-period. 

(25)  The  Commission  verified  all  information  it  considered  necessary  during  the  on-spot 
investigation at the premises of the applicant and accepted all information provided by 
its  related  companies  in  order  to  calculate  the  export  price.  Therefore,  the  fact  that 
verification visits were not carried out at the premises of these related companies had 
no  detrimental  effect  to  the  applicant.  Concerning  the  producer  in  the  analogue 
country, the findings are set out below in recitals (29) to (41). 

(26) 

In view of the above findings, it was concluded that the conditions set out in Article 
2(7)(c)  of  the  basic  Regulation  were  not  met  by  the  applicant  and,  therefore,  MET 
should not be granted. 

3. 

Individual treatment (‘IT’) 

(27)  The applicant also claimed IT in the event that it was not granted MET. On the basis 
of the information submitted, it was found that the two related Chinese companies met 
all the requirements for IT as set forth in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. 

(28) 

It was therefore concluded that IT should be granted to the applicant. 

4. 

Dumping 

Normal value 

(a)  Analogue country 

(29)  According  to  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  for  non-market  economy 
countries and, to the extent that MET could not be granted, for countries in transition, 
normal value has to be established on the basis of the price or constructed value in an 
analogue country. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
(30) 

In the Regulation initiating this review, the Commission indicated its intention to use 
Indonesia  as  an  appropriate  analogue  country  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  normal 
value  for  the  PRC  and  invited  interested  parties  to  comment  on  this.  Indonesia  had 
already been used as an analogue country in the original investigation. 

(31)  No  objections  were  raised  by  any  interested  party  with  regard  to  this  choice.  The 
Indonesian  producer  which  had  co-operated  in  the  original  investigation  also  co-
operated in the current review and completed the Commission’s questionnaire. 

(32) 

(33) 

It should also be noted that, before a decision on the selection of the most appropriate 
analogue  country  was  made,  questionnaires  were  also  sent  to  producers  in  the 
Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Japan, but these producers did not co-operate. 

In view of the above, and in particular the fact that Indonesia was used as the analogue 
country  in  the  original  investigation,  and  that  there  are  no  indications  that  the 
suitability of Indonesia as analogue country would have changed, it is concluded that 
Indonesia  constitutes  an  appropriate  analogue  country  in  accordance  with  Article 
2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation. 

(34)  The  applicant  considered  as  a  discriminatory  change  of  methodology  between  the 
original investigation and this review the fact that no verification visit was carried out 
at  the  premises  of  the  Indonesian  producer  during  the  review,  while  such  visit  was 
carried  out  during  the  original  investigation.  Furthermore,  the  applicant  considered 
discriminatory to use non-verified facts for the calculation of normal value for a non-
market  economy  exporting  producer,  while  this  does  not  happen  in  ‘new  exporter’ 
reviews concerning exporting producers in market economy countries. The applicant, 
based  on  information  in  the  non-confidential  file,  argued  that  the  reply  to  the 
questionnaire  of  the  Indonesian  producer  was  apparently  inadequate  and  there  was 
only information to make a rough calculation of constructed normal value. 

(35) 

In  accordance  with  Article  16  of  the  basic  Regulation,  verification  visits  are  not 
mandatory.  Therefore,  not  to  carry  out  a  verification  visit  cannot  be  considered 
discriminatory. Furthermore, the fact that a verification visit was not carried out at the 
premises  of  the  Indonesian  producer  during  the  review  does  not  mean  that  the 
information  provided  has  not  been  carefully  analysed.  The  information  provided  by 
the Indonesian producer was consistent with that provided in the original investigation, 
which had been verified on the spot, and with the documentary evidence supplied in 
the  reply  to  the  questionnaire.  This  information  was  sufficient  to  perform  a  detailed 
calculation  of  constructed  normal  value  as  set  out  below.  The  fact  that  the  applicant 
could not identify in the non-confidential file all confidential details of the information 
provided by the Indonesian producer does not render such information inadequate to 
calculate normal value. Finally, the applicant has not claimed that the non-confidential 
file did not contain summaries in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding 
of the information submitted in confidence. 

(36) 

In  view  of  the  above,  the  comments  of  the  applicant  on  verification  visit  and 
inadequate information had to be rejected. 

(b) Determination of normal value 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
(37)  Pursuant  to  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  normal  value  for  the  two  related 
Chinese exporting producers was established on the basis of the information received 
from the producer in the analogue country. Although the production and export sales 
of  this  producer  were  significant,  its  sales  to  unrelated  customers  on  the  Indonesian 
market  were  considered  not  to  be  made  in  sufficient  quantities.  Therefore,  normal 
value  had  to  be  determined  on  the  basis  of  the  constructed  value  for  product  types 
comparable to those exported to the Community by the applicant, i.e. on the basis of 
the  cost  of  production  of  the  REWS  manufactured  in  Indonesia  plus  a  reasonable 
amount for selling, general and administrative (‘SGA’) expenses and for profits. 

(38)  The SGA expenses used were those incurred by the Indonesian manufacturer as well 

as by one related company involved in its domestic sales. 

(39)  For the calculation of the profit margin, in the absence of sufficient quantities sold by 
the  Indonesian  producer  to  unrelated  customers  on  its  domestic  market,  it  was 
necessary to use information from the original investigation. It was decided to take the 
profit margin used to construct normal value in the original investigation concerning 
imports of REWS from Taiwan. This margin was considered reasonable in the absence 
of  any  other  information  on  the  profitability of  the  like  product  sold  in  Indonesia.  It 
should also be noted that the REWS sold by the Taiwanese exporting producers on the 
Taiwanese domestic market were all low-range REWS, which is also the case of the 
REWS manufactured by the producer in the analogue country.  

(40)  The  applicant  argued  that,  in  accordance  with  Article  11(9)  of  the  basic  Regulation, 
the  same  methodology  as  in  the  original  investigation  should  have  been  applied  in 
determining normal value, i.e. selling prices. It also argued that there is no indication 
that  the  SGA  of  the  related  company  was  included  in  the  original  investigation,  as 
there is no reference to this issue in the original Regulation. It would thus appear that 
the methodology used in the original investigation was changed to the detriment of the 
applicant. Furthermore, it merely argued that it was unusual to choose the profitability 
in the original IP of a market other than that of the analogue country. 

(41)  With  regard  to  these  arguments,  as  set  out  in  recital  (37)  above,  constructed  normal 
value with the profit on domestic sales during the original investigation in Taiwan was 
used  because  the  domestic  sales  in  the  Indonesian  market  during  the  investigation 
period were considered insufficient for establishing normal value on the basis of sales 
prices. This was not the case during the original investigation where sales prices and 
not  constructed  value  were  used.  This  is  the  reason  why  the  original  Regulation  did 
not contain any details about SGA expenses. Furthermore, it should be noted that if the 
prices of the few sales of REWS on the Indonesian market had been used, the normal 
value thus established would have been higher. The same would have happened if in 
constructing  normal  value  the  profit  margin  from  these  few  domestic  sales  in 
Indonesia  had  been  used.  It  is,  therefore,  incorrect  to  argue  that  the  methodology 
changed to the detriment of the applicant. 

Export price 

(42)  The  two  related  Chinese  exporting  producers  sold  their  REWS  to  the  Community 
through related companies (traders) registered in Samoa and Taiwan. The export price 
was  established  on  the  basis  of  the  resale  prices  paid  or  payable  by  the  first 
independent buyer in the Community. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Comparison 

(43)  The  comparison between the normal value and the export price was made on an ex-
factory  basis  and  at  the  same  level  of  trade.  In  order  to  ensure  a  fair  comparison, 
account  was  taken,  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  of 
differences 
to  affect  prices  and  price 
comparability.  On  this  basis,  allowances  for  differences  in  physical  characteristics, 
transport costs, handling costs and commissions were made where applicable. 

in  factors  which  were  demonstrated 

(44)  An  adjustment  was  made  to  the  normal  value  to  exclude  the  value  of  any  printer 
interface.  Furthermore,  as  some  of  the  models  sold  by  the  two  related  Chinese 
exporting  producers  through  their  related  sales  companies  to  the  Community  had  a 
pole, an adjustment to the normal value was made to take into account the value of the 
pole. 

(45)  As  the  related  traders  of  the  Chinese  exporting  producers  have  functions  similar  to 
those of an agent working on a commission basis, an adjustment to the export price for 
a commission was made in accordance with Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation. 
The level of the commission was calculated based on direct evidence pointing to the 
existence of such functions. In this context, in the calculation of the commission, the 
SGA expenses incurred by the related traders to sell the product concerned produced 
by the two related Chinese producers were taken into account. 

(46)  The  applicant  argued  that  the  model  sold  in  the  analogue  country  had  higher 

specifications which affected the price comparability. 

(47)  As the applicant did not provide a single example of the alleged higher specifications 

and their alleged impact on the price comparability, this claim could not be accepted. 

(48)  The  applicant  claimed  that  certain  information  submitted  subsequently  to  the 
questionnaire reply should have been used to calculate the adjustment for transport and 
handling costs on the export price. 

(49)  This claim was accepted and the export price was adjusted upwards. 

(50)  The applicant argued that an adjustment should be made to the normal value for after-
sales costs, guarantees and credit costs. It also claimed that the costs resulting from the 
agreement signed between one of the Indonesian producer’s related companies and a 
distributor in Indonesia should be deducted from the normal value. 

(51)  These claims had to be rejected because the costs mentioned by the applicant were not 
included either in the manufacturing costs  or in the SGA expenses  used to construct 
normal  value.  Therefore,  there  is  no  reason  to  deduct  such  costs  from  the  normal 
value. 

(52)  According to the applicant, Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation does not allow to 
deduct a commission from the export prices of its related companies because no actual 
commission  was  paid.  In  any  event,  when  making  such  an  adjustment  on  the  export 
price, a similar adjustment should have been made to the normal value as the company 
related  to  the  Indonesian  producer  performed  the  same  functions  as  those  of  the 
applicant’s related companies. Furthermore, as regards the sales through Taiwan, the 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
applicant  argued  that  the  calculation  of  the  adjustment  included  costs  concerning 
production and management. The apportionment key used should have been based on 
the  number  of  employees  working  in  the  distribution  and  sales  of  REWS  in  the 
Taiwanese company instead of the total number of employees working in distribution 
and sales. 

(53)  Article  2(10)(i)  does  not  require  that  a  commission  in  the  form  of  a  mark-up  has 
actually been paid, in particular when the trader is related to the exporting producer, if 
the functions of the trader are similar to those of an agent working on a commission 
basis. An adjustment for commissions should be made if the parties do not act on the 
basis  of  a  principal  –  agent  relationship,  but  achieve  the  same  economic  result  by 
acting  as  buyer  and  seller.  The  applicant’s related  companies  invoiced  all  the  export 
sales to unrelated customers and determined the selling prices, while the latter placed 
the orders with them. This was not the case of the company related to the Indonesian 
producer, whose SGA expenses were used to construct normal value. In fact, the sales 
on  the  Indonesian  market  were  made  by  another  related  company  and,  as  already 
explained in recital (51) above, the SGA expenses of this company were not used to 
construct normal value. It was, therefore, not appropriate to make such an adjustment 
to the normal value and the applicant’s claims could not be accepted. 

(54)  As regards the calculation of the adjustment for commissions, it should be stressed that 
the applicant, although specifically requested, has not provided sufficient details which 
would  have  allowed  a  different  allocation  of  its  SGA  expenses.  In  this  context,  the 
applicant’s  claim  on  the  calculation  of  the  adjustment  for  commissions  had  to  be 
rejected. 

Dumping margin 

(55)  As  provided  for  under  Article  2(11)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  weighted  average 
normal  value  by  type  was  compared  with  the  weighted  average  export  price  of  the 
corresponding type of the product concerned. 

(56)  The comparison showed the existence of dumping. In accordance with the consistent 
practice  of  the  Community,  one  dumping  margin  has  been  calculated  for  the  two 
related  exporting  producers.  This  dumping  margin  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the 
net,  free-at-Community-frontier  price,  duty  unpaid,  for  the  related  companies 
Shanghai Adeptech Precision Co., Ltd and Shanghai Excell M&E Enterprise Co., Ltd 
is 52,6%. 

D. AMENDMENT OF THE MEASURES BEING REVIEWED 

(57) 

In  the  light  of  the  results  of  the  investigation,  it  is  considered  that  a  definitive  anti-
dumping duty should be imposed for the applicant at the level of the dumping margin 
found. This margin is below the country-wide injury elimination level established for 
the PRC in the original investigation. 

(58) 

In this context, the amended anti-dumping duty applicable to imports of REWS from 
Shanghai Adeptech Precision Co., Ltd and Shanghai Excell M&E Enterprise Co., Ltd 
is 52,6%. 

E. RETROACTIVE LEVYING OF THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
(59) 

In  the  light  of  the  above  findings,  the  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  the  applicant 
shall  be  levied  retroactively  on  imports  of  the  product  concerned  which  have  been 
made subject to registration pursuant to Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 
1408/2004. 

F. DISCLOSURE 

(60)  All  parties  concerned  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the 
basis of which it was intended to impose on imports of REWS from the applicant an 
amended  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  and  to  levy  this  duty  retroactively  on  imports 
made subject to registration. Their comments were considered and taken into account 
where appropriate. 

(61)  This  review  does  not  affect  the  date  on  which  the  measures  imposed  by  Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  2605/2000  will  expire  pursuant  to  Article  11(2)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

1. 

The  table  in  Article  1(2)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2605/2000  is  hereby 
amended by adding the following: 

Article 1 

Country 

Company 

The 
People’s 
Republic of 
China 

Shanghai Adeptech Precision Co., Ltd 
No. 3217 Hong Mei Road, Shanghai 
201103, People’s Republic of China 

Shanghai Excell M&E Enterprise Co., 
Ltd 
No. 1688 Huateng Road, Huaxin Town, 
Qingpu District, Shanghai, People’s 
Republic of China 

Rate of 
duty 

TARIC 
additional code 

52,6% 

A561 

52,6% 

A561 

2. 

The duty hereby imposed shall also be levied retroactively on imports of the product 
concerned  which  have  been  registered  pursuant  to  Article  3  of  Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 1408/2004. 

The customs authorities are hereby directed to cease the registration of imports of the 
product  concerned  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China  and  produced  by 
Shanghai  Adeptech  Precision  Co.,  Ltd  and  Shanghai  Excell  M&E  Enterprise  Co., 
Ltd. 

3. 

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

EN 

12 

   EN 

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

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 

EN 

13 

   EN