Commission Regulation (EC) No 355/2006 of  28 February 2006  imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain side-by-side refrigerators originating in the Republic of Korea
Date: 2006-02-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: South Korea, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, electrical engineering, household electrical appliance

L 59/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.3.2006

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 355/2006

of 28 February 2006

imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain side-by-side refrigerators
originating in the Republic of Korea

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

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 basic Regulation) and in
particular Article 7 thereof,

the European Community (1)

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

1.1. Initiation

1. PROCEDURE

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

On 18 April 2005, a complaint concerning imports of certain side-by-side refrigerators originating in
the Republic of Korea was lodged by Whirlpool Europe srl. (the complainant) representing a major
proportion of the Community production of side-by-side refrigerators.

This complaint contained evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting
therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the opening of a proceeding.

On 2 June 2005, the proceeding was initiated by the publication of a notice of initiation in the
Official Journal of the European Union (2).

1.2. Parties concerned by the proceeding

The Commission officially advised the complainant, Korean exporting producers, traders, importers,
suppliers and retailers known to be concerned, as well as associations known to be concerned and
representatives of the Republic of Korea, of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were
given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time-
limit set in the notice of initiation.

The Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a provisional deter-
mination of dumping, resulting injury and Community interest. To this end, the Commission sent
questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to all the other companies that made
themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation. Replies were received
from three Korean exporting producers and their related importers in the Community, from the
complainant,
from two suppliers and from two retailers in the
Community.

from one unrelated importer,

(6)

Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:

(a) Producers in the Community:

— Whirlpool Europe srl, Varese, Italy;

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005,

p. 17).

(2) OJ C 135, 2.6.2005, p. 4.

1.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 59/13

(b) Unrelated importers in the Community:

— Indesit Company SpA, Fabriano, Italy;

(c) Retailers in the Community:

— Media-Saturn Systemzentrale GmbH, Ingolstadt, Germany;

(d) Exporting producers in Korea:

— Daewoo Electronics Corporation, Seoul,

— LG Electronics Corporation, Seoul,

— Samsung Electronics Corporation, Seoul;

(e) Related importers in the Community:

— Daewoo Electronics Sales UK, Wokingham, United Kingdom,

— LG Electronics Benelux BV, Almere, The Netherlands,

— LG Electronics España SA, Madrid, Spain,

— LG Electronics UK Limited, Slough, United Kingdom,

— Samsung Electronics Benelux BV, Delft, The Netherlands,

— Samsung Electronics Iberia SA, Barcelona, Spain,

— Samsung Electronics UK Limited, Chertsey, United Kingdom.

(7)

All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they
should be heard, were granted a hearing.

1.3. Investigation period

(8)

The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005
(‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). With respect to the trends relevant for the injury assessment, the
Commission analysed data covering the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 March 2005 (period
considered).

2. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

2.1. Product concerned

(9)

The product concerned is side-by-side refrigerators, i.e. combined refrigerator-freezers of a capacity
exceeding 400 litres, with at least two separate external doors fitted side-by-side, originating in the
Republic of Korea, currently classifiable within CN code ex 8418 10 20.

L 59/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.3.2006

(10) One white goods producer in the Community requested the inclusion of refrigerator and freezer sets
which, placed side-by-side, can be joined to form one system by using a special kit. The issue was
investigated and it was concluded that this product consists of two distinct appliances which can be
purchased and function independently of each-other. Therefore, this product is not a combined
refrigerator-freezer and it, consequently, does not fall within the product definition.

(11) According to one exporting producer, all refrigerators should have been included in the scope of the
proceeding as they serve the same purpose, i.e. to preserve food and beverage, and as most of them
have both a refrigerator compartment and a freezer compartment.

(12) Additionally, the same company claimed that the product description in the notice of initiation was
erroneous. According to this company, in the industry ‘side-by-side refrigerators’ were understood to
be refrigerators with a refrigerator compartment and a freezer compartment located side-by-side to
each other, with separate external doors for each compartment. The company claimed that should
the definition of the product concerned in the notice of initiation be maintained, certain ‘bottom
freezers’, namely combined refrigerator-freezers with two doors on the refrigerator
mount
compartment above and one door on the freezer compartment below, would be included in the
investigation whereas comparable models with one door on each compartment would be excluded.
The company therefore claimed that either all refrigerator-freezer combinations with three or more
doors should be excluded from the proceeding or its scope should be enlarged by including all
combined refrigerator-freezers.

(13) As regards the argument that all refrigerators should have been included as they serve the same
purpose, it is noted that the market of side-by-side refrigerators clearly is a separate and distinct
market segment. The specific physical characteristics, notably the two large doors placed side-by-side,
give a side-by-side refrigerator its own specific place on the market of combined refrigerator-freezers.
This fact is also acknowledged by producers, distributors and sellers who market the product
separately as a ‘premium’ kind of combined refrigerator-freezer.

(14) As regards the second argument,

it has been established in the investigation that there is no
commonly used definition of side-by-side refrigerators. The three doors’ combined refrigerator-
freezer as mentioned under recital (12), however, can be found alongside all other models of side-
by-side refrigerators in the market place. The exporting producer which made the above claims in the
past also marketed these combined refrigerator-freezers explicitly as ‘three door side-by-side refrig-
erators’.

(15)

(16)

(17)

It is therefore provisionally concluded that although there are differences in volume, optional features
and materials used, all types of side-by-side refrigerators, including three-door combined refrigerator-
freezers with bottom-mount freezers, share the same basic physical and technical characteristics and
are basically used for the same purposes.

Consequently, the comments of this exporting producer did not justify changing the description of
the product concerned as set out in paragraph 2 of the notice of initiation. A minor change in the
wording with no effect on the product scope covered was, however, found necessary in order to align
the product definition with the description in the Combined Nomenclature.

2.2. Like product

The product concerned, side-by-side refrigerators produced and sold in the Community by the
Community industry and side-by-side refrigerators produced and sold in the Republic of Korea
were found to have essentially the same physical and technical characteristics and the same basic
uses. They are therefore provisionally considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the
basic Regulation.

1.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 59/15

(18)

(19)

(20)

3.1. Normal value

3. DUMPING

For the determination of normal value the Commission first established, for each of the exporting
producers, whether its total domestic sales of the like product were representative in comparison with
its total export sales to the Community. In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation,
domestic sales were considered representative when the total domestic sales volume of each exporting
producer was at least 5 % of its total export sales volume to the Community. In the case of all
exporting producers their domestic sales were found to be representative within the meaning of
Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation.

The Commission subsequently identified the types of the like product sold domestically which were
identical or directly comparable to the types sold for export to the Community. For each of those
types, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of
Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular type were considered sufficiently
representative when the total domestic sales volume of that type during the IP represented 5 % or
more of the total sales volume of the comparable type exported to the Community.

(a)

The Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of each type of the product
concerned, sold domestically in representative quantities, could be considered as being made in the
ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by estab-
lishing the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent customers, of each exported
product type:
for those product types where more than 80 % by volume of sales on the
domestic market were not below unit costs, and where the weighted average sales price was equal
to or higher than the unit cost, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average
of all domestic sales prices of the type in question; (b) for those product types where at least 10 %,
but no more than 80 %, by volume of sales on the domestic market were not below unit costs,
normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of domestic sales prices which
were found to be equal to or above unit costs only, of the type in question; (c) for those product
types where less than 10 %, by volume of sales, on the domestic market, were not below unit costs, it
was considered that the product type concerned was not sold in the ordinary course of trade.

(21)

For sales of product types not made in the ordinary course of trade, as well as for product types
which were not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, normal value had to be
constructed.

(22)

To construct normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, the selling, general and
administrative (SG&A) expenses incurred and the weighted average profit realised by each of the co-
operating exporting producers concerned on its domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary
course of trade, during the investigation period, was added to their own average cost of production
during the investigation period. Where necessary, the costs of production and SG&A expenses
reported were adjusted, before being used in the ordinary course of trade test and in constructing
normal values.

3.2. Export price

(23) Most sales of each of the exporting producers concerned were made to related importers in the
Community. For those sales, the export price was established on the basis of the resale price to
independent customers in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation. Adjustments were
made to the resale price to the first independent buyer in the Community for all costs including
duties and taxes, incurred between importation and resale, in order to establish a reliable export price
at Community frontier level. These costs were freight, handling,
insurance and ancillary
expenses, as well as SG&A expenses incurred by the related importers. The resale price was
further adjusted for a reasonable profit margin which was found in the investigation to have been
attained by an independent importer of the product concerned.

loading,

L 59/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.3.2006

(24)

The remaining exports of the product concerned by each of the exporting producers were made
directly to independent customers in the Community. For those sales, the export price was estab-
lished in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of prices actually paid or
payable.

3.3. Comparison

(25)

The comparison between normal value and export price was made on an ex-works basis. In order to
ensure a fair comparison, account was taken, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regu-
lation, of differences in factors which affect price comparability. Allowances for differences in packing
costs, transport costs, ocean freight and insurance costs, handling costs, loading and ancillary costs,
duty drawback, level of trade, after-sales costs, commissions, discounts, rebates and advertising costs
were granted where applicable and justified, duly adjusted where necessary.

(26) All three exporting producers submitted a comparison table between domestically sold models and
partly comparable models sold for export to the Community, claiming, pursuant to Article 2(10)(a),
an adjustment for the remaining differences in physical characteristics. For two companies, the
claimed allowances per model had to be adjusted in order to properly reflect the market value of
the differences in physical characteristics. On that basis, allowances for differences in physical char-
acteristics were granted to all three exporting producers.

(27) One company claimed a duty drawback adjustment pursuant to Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regu-
lation, basing its claim solely on the duties paid on raw materials allegedly used for the production of
the product concerned. This company, however, did not substantiate the drawback of these duties
upon exportation of the product concerned and, therefore, no refund of import duties could be
established within the meaning of Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regulation. Accordingly, this claim
was rejected.

(28)

Two exporting producers made certain domestic sales via related retailers. They requested, pursuant
to Article 2(10)(d)(i), exclusion of these retailers’ sales from the normal value computation, as they
would be at a level of trade nonexistent on the Community market. The investigation showed that
these related retailers sold the like product predominantly or exclusively to consumers, a level of
trade which did not exist on the Community market. It was also established that the prices charged
to consumers were consistently at a different level as compared to prices charged to other categories
of customers. In view of the above findings and as the remaining domestic sales of both companies
were found to be sufficiently representative, it was decided to exclude these sales to consumers from
the normal value computation.

(29) One of the exporting producers had used a related company for the ocean transport of the product
concerned. The freight costs charged by this related party were found to be significantly below the
market level. Therefore, these costs were replaced with the costs of an unrelated freight forwarder of
which ocean transport costs for shipping the product concerned to the Community could be
obtained during the course of the investigation.

(30) All three exporting producers claimed, pursuant to Article 2(10)(g), an adjustment for credit costs
allegedly incurred on their domestic sales. These claims were based on the actual credit period taken
by customers under the ‘open account’ payment system used on the Korean domestic market. It was
found that under such a system, generally, the exporting producers did not actually grant specific
credit periods and the credit periods taken could not be accurately determined, as receipts could not
be linked to specific invoices. The exporting producers’ claims, therefore, had to be rejected.

1.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 59/17

(31)

(32)

3.4. Dumping margin

For all three exporting producers a clear pattern of export prices which significantly differed between
regions was established. It was indeed found that significant volumes at low prices were concentrated
on the UK and French markets. These two markets were responsible for more than 50 % of the
imports of the product concerned in the Community during the IP.

The dumping found on these markets would have been inappropriately disguised by the use of a
comparison of a weighted average normal value with a weighted average of export prices to all
Member States of the European Union, as the prices at dumped levels found for all three exporting
producers on the UK and French markets were wholly or partly offset by higher and largely non-
dumped prices on other Community markets. Such methodology would not, therefore, reflect the full
degree of dumping being practised. It was accordingly found appropriate to reflect in the calculation
of the dumping the significant differences in the pattern of export prices among different regions.

(33)

In this case, the transaction-to-transaction comparison was not found to be an appropriate alternative
comparison method because the process of selecting individual transactions in order to make such a
comparison was considered too impractical and arbitrary, with tens of thousands of export and
domestic transactions.

(34)

Consequently, according to Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, for each co-operating exporting
producer, the weighted average normal value was compared to the prices of all individual export
transactions to the Community.

(35) On this basis, the provisional dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the cif Community

frontier price, duty unpaid, are:

Company

Provisional dumping margin

Daewoo Electronics Corporation

LG Electronics Corporation

Samsung Electronics Corporation

9,1 %

14,3 %

4,4 %

(36)

Since the level of cooperation was high (100 % of the exports of the product concerned from Korea
to the Community), the residual provisional dumping margin was set at the level of the highest
dumping margin established for a cooperating company, i.e. at the level established for LG Electronics
Corporation, namely 14,3 %.

4.1. Community production and Community industry

4. INJURY

(37) Within the Community, the like product is only manufactured by the complainant.

(38)

The complainant properly co-operated in the investigation. Given that the complainant is the sole
producer of the like product in the Community, its production represented, during the IP, 100 % of
the Community production of the like product.

L 59/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.3.2006

(39)

The complainant therefore constitutes both the Community production within the meaning of Article
4(1) of the basic Regulation and the Community industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and
Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. The complainant will also be referred to as the ‘Community
industry’.

(40) During the start-up phase (2002), the Community industry had to resort to imports of the like
product procured from its mother company in the USA. The volumes procured from this source
declined sharply from 2003 onwards as the production of the newly built plant gathered pace (see
recitals (80) and (81) below). As for the assessment of the situation of the Community industry (see
from recital (48) below), the analysis concerns only the Community industry’s own production and
not its purchases from its mother company.

4.2. Community consumption

(41)

Community consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Community
industry’s own production on the Community market, the import volumes data obtained from the
three Korean co-operating exporting producers on the Community market, and the import volumes
on the Community market from the USA, as obtained from the most widely used database in this
particular business. The like product was not imported into the Community from any other country
in the world during the period considered.

(42) Given that the Community industry comprises only one producer, and given that the Community
market for the product concerned and the like product is supplied by only three origins (the
Community industry, the Korean producers and the USA), data relating to the market shares of
the Community industry and of the USA are presented in an indexed format in order to preserve the
confidentiality of the data submitted in confidence by the Community industry, pursuant to Article
19 of the basic Regulation.

(43)

Between 2002 and the IP, the Community market for the product concerned and the like product
has grown more than twofold. Community consumption was around 213 000 pieces in 2002, and
around 456 000 in the IP. Specifically, it increased by 51 % in 2003, rose further by 54 percentage
points in 2004, and by 10 percentage points in the IP.

Total EC consumption (pieces)

212 755

321 672

435 158

456 410

Index (2002 = 100)

100

151

205

215

2002

2003

2004

IP

4.3. Imports from the country concerned

(a) Volume

(44)

The volume of imports of the product concerned from the Republic of Korea into the Community
rose massively and steadily between 2002 and the IP. It rose by 157 % between 2002 and the IP. In
detail, imports from the country concerned increased by 66 % between 2002 and 2003, by a further
77 percentage points in 2004 and by a further 14 percentage points in the IP.

1.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 59/19

Volume of imports from the Republic of Korea
(pieces)

2002

2003

2004

IP

141 754

235 902

343 922

364 261

Index (2002 = 100)

100

166

243

257

Market share of imports from the Republic of
Korea

Prices of imports from the Republic of Korea
(EUR/piece)

Index (2002 = 100)

(b) Market share

66,6 %

73,3 %

79,0 %

79,8 %

649

100

575

89

579

89

577

89

(45)

The market share held by exporters in the country concerned increased by around 13 percentage
points during the period considered to reach a level of almost 80 % during the IP. Korean exporters
gained almost 7 percentage points in 2003, and again almost 6 percentage points in 2004. The
Community market
the Korean
producers.

is therefore characterised by an overwhelming dominance of

(c) Prices

(i) P r i c e e v o l u t i o n

(46)

Between 2002 and the IP, the average price of imports of the product concerned originating in the
Republic of Korea declined by 11 %, although there has been a constant improvement in the
functionalities of the models offered for sale, year after year. Specifically, the drop in the price
was concentrated in 2003 over 2002. After 2003, average prices have remained flat (see table above).

(ii) P r i c e u n d e r c u t t i n g

(47) A comparison for comparable models of the product concerned and like product was made between
the exporting producers’ and the Community industry's average selling prices in the Community. To
this end, Community industry’s ex-works prices to unrelated customers, net of all rebates and taxes
have been compared with the cif Community frontier prices of exporting producers of the Republic
of Korea, duly adjusted for unloading and customs clearance costs. The comparison showed that
during the IP the product concerned originating in the Republic of Korea sold in the Community
undercut the Community industry's prices by between 34 % and 42 %, depending on the exporter
concerned.

4.4. Situation of the Community industry

(48)

Pursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic
factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Community industry.

(49) Given that the Community industry comprises only one producer, data relating to the Community
industry are presented in an indexed format and/or in ranges in order to preserve confidentiality,
pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation. It must also be noted that the Community industry
started its operation in April 2002, which explains that the injury trends described hereafter generally
show sharp movements between 2002 and 2003, which may be upwards (like for the volume of
production) or downwards (like for investments).

L 59/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.3.2006

(a) Production

(50)

The Community industry’s production increased by 205 % in 2003,
increased further by 136
percentage points in 2004, when it reached a peak, and declined by 36 percentage points in the
IP. During the IP, the Community industry’s production volume ranged between 70 000 pieces and
100 000 pieces.

Production (pieces)

Index (2002 = 100)

2002

2003

2004

IP

cannot be disclosed

100

305

441

405

(b) Capacity and capacity utilisation rates

(51)

increased further by 113 percentage
The production capacity first increased by 125 % in 2003,
points in 2004 and stayed at this level in the IP. During the IP, the Community industry’s production
capacity ranged between 100 000 pieces and 150 000 pieces.

Production capacity (pieces)

cannot be disclosed

2002

2003

2004

IP

Index (2002 = 100)

Capacity utilisation

Index (2002 = 100)

100

225

338

338

cannot be disclosed

100

136

131

120

(52)

Capacity utilisation rose by 36 % in 2003, when it reached its peak. In 2004,
it declined by 5
percentage points, and dropped further by 11 percentage points in the IP. During the IP, the
Community industry’s capacity utilisation ranged between 60 % and 90 %.

(c) Stocks

(53) During the IP, inventories of finished products represented around 30 % of the Community industry’s
total production volume, a level that is considered high and excessive. The level of closing stocks of
the Community industry first decreased by 29 % in 2003 and then sharply increased by 140
percentage points in 2004, before rising by a further 27 percentage points in the IP compared to
2004. During the IP, the Community industry’s stocks ranged between 10 000 pieces and 30 000
pieces.

2002

2003

2004

IP

cannot be disclosed

100

71

211

238

Closing stock (pieces)

Index (2002 = 100)

(d) Sales volume

(54)

The sales by the Community industry of its own production on the Community market to unrelated
customers first increased by 284 % in 2003, rose further by 37 percentage points in 2004, but
declined by 6 percentage points in the IP. During the IP, the Community industry’s sales volume
ranged between 50 000 pieces and 90 000 pieces.

1.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 59/21

EC Sales volume to unrelated customers (pieces)

cannot be disclosed

Index (2002 = 100)

100

384

421

415

2002

2003

2004

IP

(e) Market share

(55)

The index reflecting the evolution of the market share held by the Community industry rose by
154 % in 2003, when it reached a peak, then declined by 48 percentage points in 2004 and by a
further 13 percentage points in the IP. During the IP, the Community industry’s market share ranged
between 10 % and 20 %.

Market share of Community industry

cannot be disclosed

Index (2002 = 100)

100

254

206

193

2002

2003

2004

IP

(f) Growth

(56)

Between 2003 and the IP, when the Community consumption increased by 64 percentage points, the
volume of sales of the Community industry on the Community market increased by only 31
percentage points. The Community industry lost around 4 percentage points of market share,
whereas dumped imports gained around 6 percentage points of market share between 2003 and
the IP.

(g) Employment

(57)

The employment level of the Community industry first increased by 110 % between 2002 and 2003,
increased further by 102 percentage points in 2004, but declined by 14 percentage points in the IP.
During the IP, the Community industry’s employment ranged between 300 and 500 persons.

2002

2003

2004

IP

cannot be disclosed

100

210

312

298

Employment (persons)

Index (2002 = 100)

(h) Productivity

(58)

the Community industry's workforce, measured as output

Productivity of
(pieces) per person
employed per year, first increased strongly by 46 % from 2002 to 2003, dropped by 5 percentage
points in 2004, and decreased by a further 5 percentage points in the IP. During the IP, the
Community industry’s productivity ranged between 100 pieces and 300 pieces per person.

Productivity (pieces per employee)

cannot be disclosed

Index (2002 = 100)

100

146

141

136

2002

2003

2004

IP

L 59/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.3.2006

(i) Wages

(59)

Between 2002 and the IP, the average wage per employee declined by 16 %. Specifically, it decreased
by 3 % in 2003, by a further 11 percentage points in 2004 and finally by 2 percentage points in the
IP.

Annual labour cost per employee (000 EUR)

cannot be disclosed

Index (2002 = 100)

100

97

86

2002

2003

2004

IP

84

(j) Sales prices

(60) Unit prices for Community sales to unrelated customers of Community industry’s own production
decreased by 4 % between 2002 and the IP, although there has been a constant improvement in the
functionalities of the models offered for sale, year after year. Specifically, prices stayed approximately
at the same level between 2002 and 2004, but experienced a drop by 4 percentage points in the IP.
During the IP, the Community industry’s average unit price ranged between 500 and 1 500 euros.

Unit price EC market (EUR/piece)

cannot be disclosed

Index (2002 = 100)

100

101

100

2002

2003

2004

IP

96

(k) Factors affecting Community prices

(61)

The investigation showed that dumped imports were undercutting the average depressed sales price
of the Community industry by 34 to 42 % in the IP. However, on a type-by-type basis, it was found
that in some instances prices offered by the exporting producers concerned were significantly lower
than the above average undercutting of the Community industry’s prices. The combination of this
undercutting established on a more individual product type level with the growing market share held
by dumped imports certainly increased the price pressure and thus affected the domestic prices of the
Community industry.

(l) Profitability and return on investments

(62) During the period considered, the profitability of the own produced sales in the Community of the
Community industry, expressed as a percentage of net sales, remained negative throughout the period
2002 to the IP. Losses were very high in 2002, due to the fact that the facility started its operation
that year. Profitability improved up to an almost break-even level in 2003, but subsequently dete-
riorated in 2004 and again reached significant losses in the IP.

2002

2003

2004

IP

Profitability of EC sales to unrelated (% of net
sales)

cannot be disclosed

Index (2002 = – 100)

– 100

– 5

– 9

– 30

ROI
(profit
investments)

in % of net book value of

cannot be disclosed

Index (2002 = – 100)

– 100

– 20

– 37

– 123

1.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 59/23

(63)

The return on investments (ROI), expressed as the profit in percent of the net book value of
investments, broadly followed the above profitability trend. It also remained negative through the
period considered. It first improved markedly in 2003, but then deteriorated in 2004 and the IP.

(m) Cash flow and ability to raise capital

(64)

The net cash flow from operating activities remained also negative through the period considered.
From its very low level of 2002, it improved up to a level close to zero, before deteriorating again in
2004 and the IP. Because of its poor return, the Community industry was unable to raise further
capital from within the group to which it belongs and had to put on hold its plans for further
expansion of production. Indeed, in a multinational group, like the one to which the Community
industry belongs, financial resources are generally allocated to the most profitable entities.

Cash flow (000 EUR)

Index (2002 = – 100)

(n) Investments

2002

2003

2004

IP

cannot be disclosed

– 100

– 8

– 65

– 65

(65)

The Community industry's annual investments in the production of the product concerned declined
sharply in 2003 as compared to 2002, which was the year when production commenced and the
major investments were undertaken. In 2004 and the IP, the flow of annual
investments in the
manufacturing of the like product remained very stable.

Net investments (000 EUR)

cannot be disclosed

Index (2002 = 100)

100

13

14

2002

2003

2004

IP

14

(o) Magnitude of dumping margin

(66) As concerns the impact on the Community industry of the magnitude of the actual margins of
dumping, given the volume and the prices of the imports from the country concerned, this impact
cannot be considered to be negligible.

(p) Recovery from past dumping

(67)

In the absence of any information on the existence of dumping prior to the situation assessed in the
present proceeding, this issue is considered irrelevant.

4.5. Conclusion on injury

(68)

Between 2002 and the IP, the volume of the dumped imports of the product concerned originating
in the Republic of Korea increased significantly by 157 % and their share of the Community market
increased by around 13 percentage points. The average prices of dumped imports from the Republic
of Korea were consistently lower than those of
the Community industry during the period
considered. Moreover, during the IP, the prices of the imports from the country concerned signifi-
cantly undercut those of the Community industry. On a weighted average basis, price undercutting
was in the IP between 34 % and 42 %, depending on the exporter concerned, while for some models,
price undercutting was in some cases even higher.

L 59/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.3.2006

(69) A deterioration in the situation of

the Community industry has been found over the period
considered. If one leaves aside 2002 which was the year when the Community industry started its
operation, most of the injury indicators developed negatively between 2003 and the IP: capacity
utilisation declined by 16 percentage points, closing stocks rose by 167 percentage points, the
Community lost 61 percentage points of market share, productivity declined by 10 percentage
points, unit sales prices declined by 5 percentage points, profitability, return on investment and
cash flow deteriorated from an already negative starting point.

(70)

Some indicators experienced apparent positive developments between 2003 and the IP. Production
volume increased by 100 percentage points, the volume of sales of the Community industry to the
Community market rose by 31 percentage points and employment rose by 88 percentage points.
These developments are considered normal for a production facility that has recently started its
operation and that attempts to utilise its fixed capital to the fullest in order to absorb its fixed
costs. However, these increases were insufficient to prevent both the loss of market share, as the
market grew even faster, and to achieve a reasonable profit margin.

(71)

In the light of the foregoing, it is provisionally concluded that the Community industry has suffered
material injury within the meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation.

5.1. Introduction

5. CAUSATION

(72)

In accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether
dumped imports have caused injury to the Community industry to a degree that enables it to be
classified as material. Known factors other than the dumped imports, which could at the same time
be injuring the Community industry, were also examined to ensure that possible injury caused by
these other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports.

5.2. Effects of the dumped imports

(73)

The significant increase in the volume of the dumped imports by 157 % between 2002 and the IP,
and of its corresponding share of the Community market, i.e. by around 13 percentage points, as
well as the undercutting found (between 32 % and 42 % during the IP) coincided with the dete-
rioration of the economic situation of the Community industry. Between 2003 and the IP, capacity
utilisation declined by 16 percentage points, closing stocks rose by 167 percentage points, the
Community lost 61 percentage points of market share, productivity declined by 10 percentage
points and unit sales prices declined by 5 percentage points. This development should be seen
against
In
addition, dumped prices were, on average, below those of the Community industry throughout
the period considered and exerted a downward pressure on them. The resulting drop in the
Community industry's prices, at a time when the costs of production remained flat triggered the
observed drop in profitability, return on investment and cash flow from an already negative starting
point. It is therefore provisionally considered that the dumped imports had a significant negative
impact on the situation of the Community industry.

the background of the fast growing Community market during the years 2002–IP.

5.3. Effects of other factors

(a) Rise in the costs of raw materials

(74) One interested party claimed that any injury suffered by the Community industry was linked to the

rise observed since 2003 in the price of certain raw materials.

1.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 59/25

(75)

their

similar prices.

raw materials at

like steel and polyurethane, rose from 2003 onwards.
Indeed, the price of certain raw materials,
However, it should be noted that for those raw materials procured from US dollar-based suppliers,
this effect has been somewhat muted by the appreciation of the euro vis-à-vis the US dollar observed
over the same time. In addition, the key raw materials used in the manufacturing process of the like
product are internationally quoted commodities and both the Community industry and its Korean
competitors are large groups endowed with a similarly large purchasing power. They therefore
procure
like the
Community industry have, given the movements in the Korean won vis-à-vis the US dollar during
the period considered, an advantage over their Korean competitors for the share of the procurement
sourced from US dollar-based suppliers. In addition, the investigation evidenced that the Community
industry’s unit production costs first decreased sharply in 2003 over 2002, in connection with the
growing volume of activity of the newly built plant and then remained flat over the period 2003–IP.
The sharp deterioration of profitability observed between 2003 and the IP is therefore not attri-
butable to any slippage of the costs of production, but rather to the decline in sales prices. Indeed,
the Community industry’s sales prices dropped by 5 percentage points between 2003 and the IP, as a
consequence of price depression and price suppression caused by dumped imports. The rise in raw
material prices therefore only played a limited role in the injury suffered by the Community industry,
if any, and to an extent that is not such as to break the causal link between the dumped imports and
the material injury suffered by the Community industry.

euro-based producers

If anything,

(b) Rise in intra-group sales

(76) One interested party claimed that any injury suffered by the Community industry was linked to the

rise observed in the volume of intra-group sales made by the Community industry.

(77)

Like any company which is part of a multinational group, the Community industry has made during
the period 2002-IP a number of sales to related parties at a transfer price. In 2002, 2003, 2004 and
the IP, these intra-company sales represented respectively only 2 %, 5 %, 15 % and 12 % of the
Community industry’s total sales. Moreover, these sales were 100 % destined to non-EU markets.
The sales volume analysed under recital (54) above, the sales prices analysed under recital (60) above
and the profitability analysed under recital (62) above refer explicitly to sales to unrelated customers
of own produced goods. Therefore, any negative price effect arising from the sales to related
customers has been carefully eliminated from the injury analysis. The argument is therefore rejected.

(c) Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) imports

(78) One interested party claimed that OEM imports from the country concerned had caused self-inflicted

injury to the Community industry.

(79)

Contrary to the allegation of the above party, the Community industry did not import the product
concerned from the country concerned during the period 2002–IP, be it under an OEM supply
agreement or any other channel. The argument is therefore rejected.

(d) Imports from other countries

(80) As indicated under recital (42) above, the Community market is supplied by three origins only:
Korean exporting producers, the Community industry and the USA. The volume of total imports
(including imports by the Community industry) originating in the USA declined by 49 % in 2003,
stayed at this level
in 2004 and increased slightly by 4 percentage points in the IP. The corre-
sponding market share held by imports from the USA declined by 66 % in 2003, by a further 9
percentage points in 2004 and stayed at this level in the IP. During the IP, the market share held by
US imports (including imports by the Community industry) ranged between 5 and 10 %. These
volume and market
the
complainant’s procurement of the like product from its parent company in the USA during the
start-up phase and the effects of increasing volumes of the dumped imports from the Korean
producers on the Community market.

share developments are influenced by the two following reasons:

L 59/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.3.2006

(81)

The output of the Community industry gathered pace in 2002 and 2003. The complainant therefore
drastically reduced its procurement from its mother company in the USA. In 2002, the Community
industry procured 62 % of its total sales from its US parent company. This ratio fell sharply to 3 % in
2003 and was 6 % in 2004 and 8 % in the IP. The Community industry’s imports from its US parent
company represented around 57 % of the total statistical import volumes originating in the USA in
2002, 6 % in 2003, 19 % in 2004 and 23 % in the IP. It is noted that the complainants’ imports
from the USA were, during the period 2003–IP, limited in volume and that, as shown in the table
below, prices of total imports from the US (complainant’s own imports and other imports) were
made at prices above both Korean and Community industry’s prices.

(82) Given the declining volume, market share and the relatively high prices, it is concluded that imports
from the USA, be it by Whirlpool itself or by an independent competitor, did not cause any injury to
the Community industry.

2002

2003

2004

Volume of imports from the USA (pieces)

cannot be disclosed

Index (2002 = 100)

100

51

51

Market share of imports from the USA

Index (2002 = 100)

Prices of imports from the USA (EUR/piece)

Index (2002 = 100)

cannot be disclosed

34

25

1 138

1 090

98

94

100

1 157

100

IP

54

25

1 012

87

(e) Consequence of start-up operations

(83) One interested party claimed that any injury felt by the Community industry was due to the start-up

operations of the newly built production facility.

(84)

The said interested party further alleged that the first like products manufactured in the facility of the
Community industry reached the market some time in April 2003. This is incorrect. The facility
started its operation in April 2002 and these products were sold already in 2002. As shown under
recital (62) above, the profitability of the Community industry was indeed highly negative in the year
of the start-up (2002). However, already in 2003, profitability improved markedly and almost
reached a break-even level. In 2004 and the IP, profitability deteriorated again. The argument of
this interested party bears no explanation as to the reasons why after, indeed, a foreseeably difficult
start-up period in 2002, profitability improved markedly (2003) before deteriorating (2004 and IP).
The argument is therefore rejected.

(f) Effects of sales of other types of refrigerators

(85) One interested party claimed that when assessing the injurious situation of the Community industry,
attention should be paid also to the effect of sales of other types of refrigerators, as consumers
seeking refrigerators have a choice among all types of refrigerators in making their buying decisions.

(86)

It has been determined under recitals (9) to (17) above that the Community market for the product
concerned and the like product constitute a market which is autonomous and distinct from the
markets of other refrigerators. The issue of the competition between this market and the market of
any other product is therefore irrelevant and the argument is rejected. In any event, the analysis of
the situation of the Community industry in recitals (48) to (71) above has been made solely on the
basis of data relating to side-by-side refrigerators.

1.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 59/27

(g) Self-inflicted injury due to erroneous design and marketing decisions

(87) One interested party claimed that the injury suffered by the Community industry was not caused by
dumping but was rather self-inflicted due to a number of erroneous strategic decisions. In detail, this
party mentioned the allegedly wrong door design (rounded doors), expensive outer materials (i.e.
stainless steel) and longer product renewal cycle.

(88) As to the first point, it should be noted that the Community industry has always produced and
offered models with both rounded and flat doors. Further, the Community industry’s sales figures and
market studies show a clear preference of consumers for rounded door models, contrary to the
allegations of the above party. Finally, it is noted that the above party itself has recently introduced a
rounded door range, a decision at odds with its above allegation.

(89) As to the second point, the investigation found that the Community industry does not only use
stainless steel for the outer finishing of the like product, but also other cheaper materials. In any
event, a comparison of the cost of the stainless steel used by the Community industry with the cost
of its nearest substitute as used by Korean exporting producers evidenced that the difference would
amount to around 1 % of the total costs of production. Against this background, the cost of the
stainless steel outer finishing cannot be the only cause for the injury suffered by the Community
industry.

(90) As to the third point, the Community industry implements a product renewal cycle of one to two
years, while the above interested party changes models annually. Admittedly, the product renewal
cycle of the Community industry is slightly less rapid than that of the above interested party, but it is
in line with that of US producers. The above interested party has not provided any material evidence
as to why and how a shorter product renewal cycle of one year instead of two years would
automatically trigger higher sales volumes and higher profits. Instead, the Community industry has
provided evidence that trade partners and retailers do not favour too frequent renewals of the
product range, due to the high costs of display and catalogues involved.

(91)

The issue of allegedly erroneous design and marketing decisions therefore only played a marginal
role, if any, in the injury suffered by the Community industry, to an extent that is not such as to
break the causal link.

(h) Competition in different product ranges

(92) One interested party claimed that (i) it was not competing with the Community industry in the same
product range; (ii) drawing conclusions from a comparison of average prices was misleading; and
(iii) as a consequence, it could not have caused injury to the Community industry.

(93)

The homogeneity of the scope of the product concerned and of the like product has been defined
under recitals (9) to (17) above. Obviously, each market so defined encompasses a number of types,
models or qualities. However, these various models share the same basic physical, technical and end-
use characteristics and no clear dividing line can be drawn between one segment and the other, as
overlaps exist between adjoining segments. Undercutting calculations have been made on a model
basis (see recital
the
Community industry’s prices by the export prices of this exporting producer has been evidenced
for virtually all the models compared. The argument is therefore rejected.

(47) above), and not simply on an average price basis. Undercutting of

5.4. Conclusion on causation

(94)

In conclusion, the above analysis has demonstrated that there was a substantial increase in volume
and market share of the imports originating in the country concerned between 2002 and the IP,
together with a considerable decrease in their sales prices and a high level of price undercutting
during the IP. This increase in market share of the low-priced Korean imports coincided with a
decline in the Community industry’s market share and in unit sales price, and with the drop in
profitability, in return on investments and cash-flow from operating activities.

L 59/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.3.2006

(95) On the other hand, the examination of the other factors which could have injured the Community

industry revealed that none of these could have had a significant negative impact.

(96)

Based on the above analysis which has properly distinguished and separated the effects of all known
factors on the situation of the Community industry from the injurious effects of the dumped imports,
it is provisionally concluded that the dumped imports originating in the country concerned have
caused material injury to the Community industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic
Regulation.

6. COMMUNITY INTEREST

(97)

injury and causation,
The Commission examined whether, despite the conclusions on dumping,
compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Community
interest to adopt measures in this particular case. For this purpose, and pursuant to Article 21(1) of
the basic Regulation, the Commission considered the likely impact of measures for all parties
concerned.

6.1. Interest of the Community industry

(98) As indicated under recital (39) above, the Community industry is composed of one company, with
one production facility in Italy, and employs in the range of 300-500 persons directly involved in the
production, sales and administration of the like product. If measures are imposed, it is expected that
the sales volumes of the Community industry on the Community market would rise. It is therefore
expected that the increase in production, the rise in capacity utilisation and productivity and the
resulting likely decrease in unit costs, will allow the Community industry to improve its financial
situation and, at the same time, to offer more competitive prices. This would reduce the substantial
gap found between Community industry’s prices and Korean producers’ prices.

(99) On the other hand, should anti-dumping measures not be imposed, it is likely that the negative trend
of the Community industry will continue. The Community industry will
likely continue to lose
market shares and to experience a deterioration of its profitability. This will in all likelihood lead
to cuts in production and investments, closure of certain production capacities and further job
reduction in the Community.

(100)

In conclusion, the imposition of anti-dumping measures would allow the Community industry to
recover from the effects of injurious dumping found.

6.2. Interest of suppliers of the Community industry

(101) Two suppliers of the Community industry, supplying two of the principal raw materials consumed by
the Community industry, co-operated in the proceeding and expressed their support
for the
complaint lodged by the Community industry. These two suppliers are representative as the above
two raw materials accounted for around 30 % of the Community industry’s total procurement of raw
materials. The supplies of raw materials and components to the Community industry with respect to
the manufacturing of the like product represented on average around 2 % of these two companies’
respective total turnover and 22 direct jobs.

(102) The imposition of measures would allow the co-operating suppliers to increase their turnover, their

profitability and their employment.

6.3. Interest of the white goods industry

(103) Various industrial federations (Conseil Européen de la construction d’appareils domestiques-CECED
and Associazione Nazionale Industrie Apparecchi Domestici e Professionali-ANIE) have made written
submissions in favour of anti-dumping measures in this particular proceeding.

1.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 59/29

(104) Likewise, in order to raise public awareness on the price-depressive effect brought about by dumped
imports from the Republic of Korea, major manufacturers of white goods (Electrolux, Bosch-
Siemens), although not manufacturers of
in the Community, expressed their
support for the complaint lodged by the complainant. One of these companies indicated that it
had seriously considered starting its own production of the like product in the Community but this
plan had been put on hold because of dumped imports originating in the Republic of Korea. It
should be noted that both Electrolux and Bosch-Siemens imported the like product from the USA
during the IP and were therefore also directly affected by the unfair trade practice of the Korean
exporting producers. In each of the above two companies, around 30 to 50 jobs in the Community
can be allocated to the import and resale activity of the like product.

the like product

(105) The white goods industry at large would therefore support the imposition of anti-dumping measures.

6.4. Interest of related importers in the Community

(106) Most of the imports of the product concerned are made through related importers, which are
subsidiaries of the three co-operating Korean producers. These related importers oppose any anti-
dumping measure. During the IP, the 26 co-operating related importers imported around 96 % of the
Community’s total import volume of the product concerned originating in the country concerned.
The activity of import and resale of the product concerned accounts for around 4 % of these
companies’ total turnover. In terms of workforce, from a total of around 4 000 persons employed
by these related importers, 170 persons are directly involved in the trading and resale of the product
concerned in the Community.

(107) As regards the possible effect of measures on these importers, it should be noted firstly that the
investigation has evidenced that the market of the product concerned and like product in the
Community is a fast growing market. In addition, the level of duties proposed is moderate, and,
as the measures are based on dumping margins, they will not fully close the substantial gap observed
between Korean export prices and Community industry’s prices. In other words, even when corrected
for the dumping found, Korean export prices would still undercut current Community industry’s
prices. As a consequence of the foregoing considerations, it is not certain that the measures will
trigger a decline in the sales volume of the Korean exporting producers. To the contrary, in view of
the fast growing market, one could likely observe a levelling off of that sales volume, which should
not significantly affect the current situation of the related importers. Moreover, as pointed out in the
previous recital, the import of the product concerned in any event only represents around 4 % of
these companies’ turnover.

(108) For these reasons,

it is provisionally concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures is
unlikely to have a serious negative effect on the situation of related importers in the Community.

6.5. Interest of unrelated importers in the Community

(109) During the IP, the only co-operating unrelated importer imported around 2 % of the Community’s
total import volume of the product concerned originating in the country concerned. This importer
therefore imported around 50 % of the volumes that are not imported via related importers from the
Republic of Korea. It is deemed representative of the situation of unrelated importers. This co-
operating party, which imported the product concerned under an OEM supply agreement from
the co-operating exporting producers in the Republic of Korea for resale inside the
one of
indicated that it wanted to stay neutral with regard to
Community under its own brand names,
the complaint lodged by the complainant, and that it might consider starting its own production of
the like product in the Community, depending upon the results of the present proceeding. The
activity of resale of the product concerned accounts for a negligible amount of its total company
turnover. In terms of workforce, less than 10 persons are directly involved in the trading and resale
of the product concerned.

L 59/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.3.2006

(110) As seen under recital (107) above, anti-dumping measures in the present case may not lead to a
decline in the sales volume of the product concerned, but rather in a levelling off of that import
volume. Given the undetermined position of this unrelated importer in the present proceeding and
the negligible share of its turnover concerned by the activity of resale in the Community,
it is
provisionally concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures is likely to have a marginal
effect on the situation of unrelated importers in the Community.

6.6. Interest of the retailers and of consumers

(111) Given the specificity of the market at stake in this proceeding, co-operation was sought from retailers
and from consumer associations. However, very little co-operation was obtained. Only two retailers
offered co-operation. Neither of them explicitly opposed the complaint. During the IP, the sales
volume of side-by-side refrigerators by the two co-operating retailers amounted to around 4 % of
the total Community consumption. The turnover generated by the sales of the product concerned
and of the like product represented 0,1 % of the total turnover of these retailers and yielded a gross
margin of around 10 % over net sales during the IP. Based on relative turnovers, the number of jobs
allocated to the product concerned were estimated to around 50 during the IP.

(112) As developed under recital (107) above, anti-dumping measures in this case may trigger a levelling
off of sales volume originating in the country concerned. The price effect of such scenario would
likely be as follows. Korean export cif prices at Community frontier would be liable to a duty ranging
between 4,4 % and 14,3 %. Between this level of delivery and the final consumer price, various costs
including, inter alia, the delivery costs to and the mark up of the importers and the delivery costs to
and the mark up of the retailers, will have to be added. All in all, these additions may result in a final
consumer price that is around 100 % higher than the above cif price. As a result, the impact of the
anti-dumping duty in the final consumer price would, in percentage terms, be approximately half of
the rate of the anti-dumping duty. Given the dominant market share held by Korean exporting
producers, the benchmark selling price on the Community market is and will
likelihood
continue to be set by them. As discussed under recitals (98) and (107) above, the Community
industry might be in a position to price more competitively, as a consequence of the imposition
of the measures. However, considering its relatively small market share, this will have little effect on
the average Community consumer price of this particular product. The price of imports from the
USA is unlikely to be affected by the measures proposed. All in all, a moderate price increase in the
consumer price of maximum 2 % to 7 % could be observed as a consequence of the imposition of
the measures.

in all

(113)

In light of the above and given the overall low degree of co-operation, the situation of retailers and of
consumers in the Community is therefore unlikely to be substantially affected by the proposed
measures.

6.7. Conclusion on Community interest

(114) The effects of the imposition of measures can be expected to afford the Community industry the
opportunity to regain lost sales and market shares and to improve its profitability. In view of the
deteriorating situation of the Community industry, there is a real risk that in the absence of measures,
the sole Community producer may close down its production facility and lay-off its workforce. The
suppliers of the Community industry would also benefit from the imposition of measures. The white
goods industry at large supports measures. Co-operating unrelated importers and retailers stayed
neutral
in this proceeding. Whilst some limited negative effects may occur in the form of a
levelling off in the volumes imported, the extent of these is far outweighed by the expected beneficial
outcome for the Community industry. In light of the above, it is provisionally concluded that no
compelling reasons exist for not imposing measures in the present case and that the application of
measures would be in the interest of the Community.

1.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 59/31

7. PROPOSAL FOR PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

(115)

In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping,
interest, provisional measures should be imposed in order
Community industry by the dumped imports.

injury, causation and Community
injury to the
to prevent

further

7.1. Injury elimination level

(116) The level of the provisional anti-dumping measures should be sufficient to eliminate the injury to the
Community industry caused by the dumped imports, without exceeding the dumping margins found.
When calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it
was considered that any measures should allow the Community industry to obtain a profit before tax
that could be reasonably achieved under normal conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of
dumped imports.

(117) On the basis of the information available, it was preliminarily found that a profit margin of 6 % of
turnover could be regarded as an appropriate level that the Community industry could be expected to
obtain in the absence of
injurious dumping. The investigation found that Whirlpool achieved
approximately this profit margin in the USA for sales of side-by-side refrigerators and also
achieved this return on other comparable segments in the Community not faced with dumped
imports.

(118) The necessary price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison, on a transaction by
transaction basis, of the weighted average import price, as established for the price undercutting
calculations, with the non-injurious price of the like product sold by the Community industry on the
Community market. The non-injurious price has been obtained by adjusting the sales price of the
Community industry in order to reflect the above mentioned profit margin. Any difference resulting
from this comparison was then expressed as a percentage of the total cif import value.

(119) The above-mentioned price comparison showed the following injury margins:

Daewoo Electronics Corporation

LG Electronics Corporation

Samsung Electronics Corporation

98,5 %

74,8 %

66,3 %

(120) As the injury elimination level was higher than the dumping margin established, the provisional

measures should be based on the latter.

7.2. Provisional measures

(121)

In the light of the foregoing and pursuant to Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, it is considered that
a provisional anti-dumping duty should be imposed at the level of the lowest of the dumping and
injury margins found, in accordance with the lesser duty rule.

(122) Consequently, the provisional anti-dumping duties should be as follows:

Company

Injury elimi-
nation margin

Dumping margin

Proposed anti-
dumping duty

Daewoo Electronics Corporation

LG Electronics Corporation

Samsung Electronics Corporation

All other companies

98,5 %

74,8 %

66,3 %

98,5 %

9,1 %

14,3 %

4,4 %

14,3 %

9,1 %

14,3 %

4,4 %

14,3 %

L 59/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.3.2006

(123) The individual anti-dumping duty rates for the companies specified in this Regulation were estab-
lished on the basis of the findings of the present investigation. Therefore, they reflect the situation
found during that investigation with respect to these companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the
countrywide duty applicable to ‘all other companies’) are thus exclusively applicable to imports of
products originating in the Republic of Korea and produced by these companies and thus by the
specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by any other company not specifically
mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name and address,
including entities
related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the
countrywide duty rate.

(124) Any claim requesting the application of an individual company anti-dumping duty rate (e.g. following
a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities)
should be addressed to the Commission forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any
modification in the company’s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated
with, for example, the name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appro-
priate, the Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting from
individual duty rates.

7.3. Final Provision

(125)

In the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties
which made themselves known within the time-limit specified in the notice of initiation may make
their views known in writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated that the findings
concerning the imposition of duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional and
may have to be reconsidered for the purpose of any definitive measures,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.
A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on side-by-side refrigerators, i.e. combined refrig-
erator-freezers of a capacity exceeding 400 litres, with at least two separate external doors fitted side-by-side,
falling within CN code ex 8418 10 20 (TARIC code 8418 10 20 91) and originating in the Republic of
Korea.

2.
The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price,
before duty, of the products described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies below shall be as
follows:

Company

Anti-Dumping
duty
(%)

TARIC Additional
Code

Daewoo Electronics Corporation, 686 Ahyeon-dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul

LG Electronics Corporation, LG Twin Towers, 20, Yeouido-dong,
Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul

Samsung Electronics Corporation, Samsung Main Bldg, 250, 2-ga, Taepyeong-ro,
Jung-gu, Seoul

All other companies

9,1

14,3

4,4

14,3

A733

A734

A735

A999

The release for free circulation in the Community of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be

3.
subject to the provision of a security, equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.

1.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 59/33

4.

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

Article 2

Without prejudice to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, interested parties may request disclosure of
the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views
known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within one month of the date of entry
into force of this Regulation.

Pursuant to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, the parties concerned may comment on the
application of this Regulation within one month of the date of its entry into force.

Article 3

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

Article 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of six months.

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

Done at Brussels, 28 February 2006.

For the Commission

Peter MANDELSON
Member of the Commission