Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain side-by-side refrigerators originating in the Republic of Korea
Date: 2006-07-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: South Korea, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, electrical engineering, household electrical appliance, originating product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 31.7.2006 
COM(2006) 436 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain side-by-side refrigerators originating in  
the Republic of Korea 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1)  CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This  proposal  concerns  the  application  of  Article  5  of  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries 
not  members  of  the  European  Community,  as  last  amended  by  Council  Regulation 
(EC) No 2117/2005 of 21 December 2005 (‘the basic Regulation’). 

•  General context 

This proposal is made in the context of the implementation of the basic Regulation and 
is the result of an investigation which was carried out in line with the substantive and 
procedural requirements laid out in the basic Regulation. 

•  Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

Not applicable. 

•  Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2)  CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

•  Consultation of interested parties 

Interested  parties  concerned  by  the  proceeding  have  already  had  the  possibility  to 
defend their interests during the investigation, in line with the provisions of the basic 
Regulation. 

•  Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

•  Impact assessment 

This proposal is the result of the implementation of the basic Regulation. 

The  basic  Regulation  does  not  foresee  a  general  impact  assessment  but  contains  an 
exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed. 

3)  LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

On  2  June  2005,  the  Commission  initiated  an  anti-dumping  proceeding  concerning 
imports of certain side-by-side refrigerators originating in the Republic of Korea. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The investigation found dumping of the product concerned, which caused injury to the 
Community  industry.  The  investigation  also  evidenced  that  there  was  no  compelling 
Community interest aspect against the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures. 

Therefore,  it  is  suggested  that  the  Council  adopts  the  attached  proposal  for  a 
Regulation in order to impose definitive measures. 

•  Legal basis 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22 December  1995  on  protection  against 
dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community,  as  last 
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 of 21 December 2005. 

•  Subsidiarity principle 

The proposal falls under the exclusive competence of the Community. The subsidiarity 
principle therefore does not apply. 

•  Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reasons: 

The form of action is described in the above-mentioned basic Regulation and leaves no 
scope for national decision. 

Indication  of  how  financial  and  administrative  burden  falling  upon  the  Community, 
national governments, regional and local authorities, economic operators and citizens is 
minimized and proportionate to the objective of the proposal is not applicable. 

•  Choice of instruments 

Proposed instrument: Regulation. 

Other means would not be adequate for the following reason: 

Other  means  would  not  be  adequate  because  the  basic  Regulation  does  not  foresee 
alternative options. 

4)  BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of certain side-by-side refrigerators originating in  
the Republic of Korea 

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 9 thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

A. 

PROVISIONAL MEASURES 

On  2  June  2005,  the  Commission  published  a  notice2  initiating  an  anti-dumping 
proceeding  on  imports  into  the  Community  of  certain  side-by-side  refrigerators 
originating  in  the  Republic  of  Korea.  On  1  March  2006,  the  Commission,  by 
Regulation  (EC)  No  355/20063  (‘the  provisional  Regulation’)  imposed  a  provisional 
anti-dumping duty on the same product. 

B. 

SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE 

Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of 
which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures, several interested 
parties  made  written  submissions  making  their  views  known  on  the  provisional 
findings. The parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard.  

The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for 
the definitive findings.  

All  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the  basis  of 
which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty 
on  imports  of  certain  side-by-side  refrigerators  originating  in  the  Republic  of  Korea 

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). 
OJ C 135, 2.6.2005, p. 4. 
OJ L 59, 1.3.2006, p.12. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

1 

2 
3 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
and  the  definitive  collection  of  the  amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional  duty. 
They were also granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to 
the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which definitive 
measures are imposed. 

(5) 

The  oral  and  written  comments  submitted  by  the  interested  parties  were  considered 
and, where appropriate, the findings have been modified accordingly. 

C. 

PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

The  same  exporting  producer  as  referred  to  under  recitals  (11)  and  (12)  of  the 
provisional Regulation reiterated and elaborated further its arguments on the issue of 
the product scope. 

In  particular,  this  exporter  claimed  that  the  product  scope  should  have  covered  all 
large capacity combined refrigerator-freezers (‘CRF’) with a capacity above 400 litres 
since a segmentation of those refrigerators would be inconsistent with the past practice 
of the Community institutions, would disregard evidence from other interested parties 
and would ignore market reality (claim (i)). 

This exporter further claimed that should claim (i) be rejected, any attempt to segment 
the CRF market should exclude three-door side-by-side models (as described in recital 
(12)  of  the  provisional  Regulation)  from  the  scope  of  the  product  concerned.  In 
essence,  this  exporter  argued  that  it  is  not  the  external  characteristics  (notably  the 
doors) of the models which are relevant, but the internal configuration. In particular, 
the exporter considered that the alignment of the fresh food and freezer compartments 
was  the  essential  basic  distinguishing  characteristic  of  a  side-by-side  refrigerator 
(claim (ii)). 

1.  Claim (i) 

(9) 

It  is  the  standing  practice  of  the  Community  institutions  when  defining  the  product 
concerned to consider primarily the basic physical and technical characteristics of the 
said product. Furthermore, models classified in different product segments are usually 
considered  to  form  one  single  product  unless  clear  dividing  lines  exist  between  the 
various segments. 

(10)  Having paid careful attention to all the submissions made by all the interested parties 
to this proceeding, the investigation has identified that the CRF market is traditionally 
divided into three segments: the segment of the bottom-mount refrigerators (i.e. fresh-
food compartment placed on top of the freezer compartment), the segment of the top-
mount  refrigerators  (i.e.  freezer  compartment  placed  on  top  of  the  fresh-food 
compartment) and the segment of the side-by-side refrigerators (i.e. two doors side-by-
side  opening  on  two  compartments  placed  side-by-side).  This  market  categorisation 
into  three  distinct  segments  is  undisputed  and  is  familiar  to  all  operators  in  this 
particular  business.  It  has  even  been  acknowledged  by  the  said  exporter  in  several 
written  submissions.  Furthermore,  the  claim  based  on  the  “evidence  from  other 
interested parties” reflects in fact selective reading by this exporter of a fragment of a 
submission  from  a  white  goods  producer  that  supports  measures  but  does  not 
manufacture  the  like  product  (see  recitals  (10)  and  (104)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation). In this submission, the manufacturer of white goods indicates that it has 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
faced  negative  knock-on  effects  on  its  sales  of  non-like  products  in  the  Community 
due  to  dumped  imports.  However,  the  fact  that  this  manufacturer  has  allegedly 
suffered  such  a  knock-on  effect  is  not  in  itself  conclusive  evidence  that  all  large 
capacity CRFs with a capacity above 400 litres should be considered to be the product 
concerned regardless of the segments as described above into which they fall. Indeed, 
it was established that the technological and physical characteristics underlying these 
two products are totally different.  

(11) 

It  is  therefore  considered  that  there  exists  a  clear  dividing  line  between  the  three 
segments constituting the universe of the CRF market. It is concluded that there is no 
justification for expanding the scope of the product concerned in order to encompass 
all CRFs as requested by the exporter concerned. As a consequence, claim (i) had to be 
rejected. 

2.  Claim (ii) 

(12) 

In  claim  (ii),  the  same  exporter  seeks  the  exclusion  from  the  scope  of  the  product 
concerned  of  a  particular  model  of  CRF  (hereafter  referred  to  as  'the  three-door 
model') which has already been described in recital (12) of the provisional Regulation. 

(13)  Since  the  start  of  this  proceeding,  the  Commission  had  defined  the  scope  of  the 
product  on  the  basis  of  external  characteristics,  namely  the  presence  of  at  least  two 
separate swing doors, placed side-by-side. This approach was deemed appropriate on 
both  grounds  of  physical  characteristics  and  consumer  perception.  As  to  physical 
characteristics,  the  presence  of  the  two  swing  doors  placed  side-by-side  was 
considered  the  most  immediately  visible  feature.  As  to  consumer  perception,  a  key 
element  was  the  fact  that  the  claimant  itself  had  repeatedly  marketed  and  advertised 
the  three-door  model  as  a  side-by-side  refrigerator.  The  Commission  was  informed 
that inner  compartments were  placed  differently in a typical side-by-side refrigerator 
and  in  a  three-door  model,  but  this  distinction  was  not  considered  decisive  for  the 
exclusion of three doors side-by-side refrigerators from the product definition since no 
conclusive  evidence  had  been  submitted  in  this  respect.  On  the  basis  of  the 
information available at that time, the Commission had indicated in recital (14) of the 
provisional  Regulation  that  "there  is  no  commonly  used  definition  of  side-by-side 
refrigerators". 

(14)  This issue continued to be examined after provisional measures. Additional evidence 
supporting a definition of the segment of side-by-side refrigerators on the basis of the 
inner  configuration  of  the  compartments  and  not  on  the  basis  of  the  position  of  the 
doors was submitted by the above-mentioned exporter. After definitive disclosure, in 
the light of further evidence provided by the same exporter, the positions expressed by 
some leading research institutes and classification bodies, most of which classify side- 
by-side refrigerators on the basis of the inner configuration and not on the basis of the 
position of the doors, were further assessed. This lead to the conclusion that, from the 
point of view of physical characteristics, the three-door model cannot be considered as 
part  of  the  side-by-side  segment,  as  referred  to  under  recital  (10)  above.  As  to 
consumer  perception,  both  the  claimant  and  the  Community  industry  submitted 
consumer  surveys  supporting  their  respective  views  and  contradicting  each  other.  In 
this  respect,  therefore,  no  clear  conclusion  could  be  drawn  in  one  direction  or  the 
other. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
(15) 

It stems from the above that the three-door model should be regarded as belonging to 
the segment of the bottom-mount refrigerators and not to the segment of the side-by-
side refrigerators. Claim (ii) was therefore accepted.  

(16)  As a consequence, it was deemed appropriate to revise the product scope definition as 
determined  in  the  provisional  Regulation.  Therefore,  the  product  concerned  is 
definitively  defined  as  combined  refrigerator-freezers  with  a  capacity  exceeding  400 
litres  and  with  the  freezer  and  refrigerator  compartments  placed  side-by-side, 
originating  in  the  Republic  of  Korea,  currently  classifiable  within  CN  code  ex 
8418 10 20.  

D. 

DUMPING 

1.  Normal value 

(17) 

In the absence of any comments, the content of recitals (18) to (22) of the provisional 
Regulation concerning normal value is hereby confirmed.  

2. 

Export Price 

(18)  As  stipulated  in  recital  (23)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  the  export  price  for  sales 
into  the  Community  made  via  related  importers  was  constructed  on  the  basis  of  the 
resale  price  to  the  first  independent  customer  in  accordance  with  Article  2(9)  of  the 
basic  Regulation.  In  this  export  price  construction,  a  profit  margin  of  a  company 
which  was  considered  to  be  an  independent  importer  of  the  product  concerned  had 
been  used.  After  final  disclosure  was  made  to  the  interested  parties,  one  exporting 
producer submitted that the company used for establishing this profit margin was not 
an unrelated importer but a first independent customer of one of its related importers. 
The  claim  was  duly  investigated  and  it  was  concluded  that  the  company  concerned 
indeed did not qualify as an unrelated importer. Consequently, it was decided that its 
profit margin could not be used in the construction of the export prices. Therefore, an 
alternative  source  had  to  be  found  to  establish  a  reasonable  margin  for  profit  as 
required  under  Article  2(9)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  No  alternative  independent 
importer's  profit  information  could  be  acquired  within  the  framework  of  this 
investigation. Therefore, in view of the fact the two products pertain to the same white 
goods  sector  and  the  Korean  exporting  producers  concerned  being  the  same,  it  was 
considered  reasonable  to  revert  for  this  purpose  to  the  5%  profit  margin  used  in  the 
microwave ovens anti-dumping proceeding4. 

(19) 

In  the  absence  of  any  further  comments,  the  contents  of  recitals  (23)  to  (24)  of  the 
provisional  Regulation  concerning  the  determination  of  the  export  price  are  hereby 
confirmed. 

3.  Comparison 

(20)  As  indicated  in  recital  (26)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  in  cases  where  no  direct 
comparison  between  exported  models  and  domestically  sold  models  could  be  made 
and in order to establish the normal value as much as possible on the domestic sales of 
the exporting producers, adjustments were made to the normal values established for 

4 

See Council Regulation (EC) 2041/2000, (OJ L 244, 29.9.2000, p. 33, recital 26).  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
some  models  to  reflect  the  market  value  of  the  different  physical  characteristics 
between  the  model  sold  domestically  and  the  one  exported,  pursuant  to  Article 
2(10)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  Two  of  the  exporting  producers  contested  the 
adjustment made at the provisional stage.  

(21)  One  exporting  producer  claimed  that  no  adjustment  should  have  been  made  because 
even if there were differences in physical characteristics between the exported models 
and  the  domestically  sold  models  proposed  for  comparison,  these  differences  would 
have no impact on the market price. This claim had to be dismissed as the number of 
differences  found  between  the  exported  models  and  those  sold  domestically  and 
proposed  for  comparison  ranged  up  to  seven  features  and  these  differences  often 
included  important  features  like  ice  and  water  dispenser,  door  finishing  and 
temperature  control  system.  Therefore,  following  a  normal  economic  logic,  such 
differences should have an impact on the market value of these models.  

(22)  The other exporting producer for which, in order to properly reflect the market value 
of the differences in physical characteristics, an adjustment to the submitted values for 
these differences had been made by the Commission at the provisional stage, contested 
the  resulting  calculation.  Subsequent  to  the  final  disclosure,  the  company  pointed  at 
some  elements  in  the  Commission's  approach  which  might  lead  to  distortions  in  the 
normal value thus calculated and requested that the normal value for exported models 
without corresponding domestic sales be constructed. This claim was investigated and 
it  was  found  that  certain  adjustments  made  by  the  Commission  to  the  physical 
characteristics claim of the company might have led to distorted normal values. It was 
therefore decided to construct normal values for this company in cases where no direct 
comparison between exported models and domestically sold models could be made, in 
accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation. 

(23)  All three exporting producers contested the provisional determination not to grant an 
adjustment,  claimed  under  Article  2(10)(g)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  for  credit  costs 
allegedly  incurred  on  their  domestic  sales.  The  three  exporters  substantiated  that  the 
credit terms used had been contractually agreed and enforced by the companies. It was 
also demonstrated that invoices could be linked to payments. In view of the foregoing, 
the  domestic  credit  costs  were  found  to  have  an  impact  on  price  comparability  as 
required by Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation and it was consequently decided to 
grant adjustments for these costs.  

(24)  One  exporting  producer  requested  the  exclusion  of  its  related  importers’  sales  of 
damaged  and/or  malfunctioning  products  from  the  dumping  calculation.  These  sales, 
which constituted a very minor part of the company’s sales on the Community market, 
had been reported separately and had been verified during the on the spot verifications. 
It  had  been  evidenced  that  these  sales  related  indeed  to  malfunctioning  or  damaged 
products  and  that  customers  and  prices  of  these  products  were  entirely  distinct  as 
compared  to  customers  and  prices  of  regular  sales.  In  view  of  the  absence  of 
comparable sales on the company’s domestic market, no meaningful comparison could 
be made with regard to these sales. Therefore, this claim was accepted.  

(25)  The  same  exporting  producer  contested  the  Commission’s  provisional  determination 
to reject the reported ocean freight costs for the purpose of adjusting the export price 
pursuant to Article 2(10)(e) of the basic Regulation. The reported ocean freight costs 
were rejected because they were invoiced to the exporter by a related company. The 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
exporting producer now demonstrated that the related company was a logistics entity 
that  contracted  the  transport  services  to  independent  shipping  companies.  It  was 
further proven that the related company invoiced to the exporter the actual cost of the 
freight  as  invoiced  to  it  by  the  independent  shipping  companies  plus  a  reasonable 
mark-up  for  its  services.  Therefore,  it  was  decided  that  the  reported  ocean  transport 
costs could be considered reliable and the calculations were amended accordingly. 

(26)  Apart from the adjustments made, as set out in recitals (22) to (25) of this Regulation, 
the  contents  of  recitals  (25)  to  (30)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  in  relation  to  the 
comparison of normal value and export prices, are hereby confirmed. 

4.  Dumping margin 

(27)  All  three  companies  contested  the  methodology  the  Commission  had  used  for 
calculating the dumping margin. As explained in recitals (31) to (34) of the provisional 
Regulation,  in  order  to  reflect  in  the  calculation  of  the  dumping  the  significant 
differences  of  export  prices  which  constituted  a  pattern  among  different  regions  and 
because a comparison of either weighted average normal values with weighted average 
export  prices or of  individual export and domestic sales transactions would not have 
reflected  the  full  degree  of  dumping  being  practiced,  the  weighted  average  normal 
value  was  compared  to  the  prices  of  all  individual  export  transactions  to  the 
Community.  For  all  three  exporting  producers,  it  was  confirmed  that  significant 
differences in sales prices amongst regions existed and that, for the reasons already set 
out  in  recitals  (31)  to  (34)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  it  was  indeed  warranted  to 
compare  the  weighted  average  normal  value  to  the  prices  of  all  individual  export 
transactions  to  the  Community.  The  claims  of  the  exporting  producers  are  therefore 
dismissed. 

(28) 

In the light of the above adjustments, and after correction of some calculation errors, 
the amount of dumping finally determined, expressed as a percentage of the CIF net 
free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, is as follows: 

Daewoo Electronics Corporation 

LG Electronics Corporation 

Samsung Electronics Corporation 

3,4% 

12,2% 

de minimis 

E. 

COMMUNITY PRODUCTION AND COMMUNITY INDUSTRY 

(29) 

In the absence of any new and substantiated information or argument in this particular 
respect, recitals (37) to (40) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

F. 

INJURY 

(30)  After  provisional  measures  the  definition  of  the  product  scope  was  revised  as 
explained  at  recital  (16)  above.  Accordingly,  data  relating  to  the  three-door  model 
have  been  excluded  from  the  injury  analysis.  In  any  event,  it  should  be  noted  that, 
during the IP, the Community industry was not producing this type of product and the 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
volume  of  imports  of  the  three-door  model  from  the  Republic  of  Korea  into  the 
Community were negligible.  

Imports from the country concerned 

(31)  Since  it  was  found  that  Samsung  Electronics  Corporation  ('Samsung')  had  a  de 
minimis  dumping  margin  during  the  IP  (see  recital  (28)  above),  it  is  necessary  to 
distinguish  those  imports  from  the  remainder  of  the  imports  originating  in  the 
Republic of Korea. The latter is referred to as 'dumped imports' hereafter. Recitals (44) 
to  (47)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  therefore  superseded  by  the  following 
considerations. In order to preserve confidentiality, data concerning the imports from 
the two remaining Korean producers are presented in an indexed format. 

2002

2003

2004

IP

Volume of dumped imports from the Republic of Korea (pieces)
Index (2002=100)
Market share of dumped imports from the Republic of Korea
Index (2002=100)
Prices of dumped imports from the Republic of Korea (EUR/piece)
Index (2002=100)

100

100

100

183

cannot be disclosed
336
cannot be disclosed
164
cannot be disclosed
95

121

92

366

170

95

(32)  On this basis, the volume of dumped imports  increased sharply (by 266 %) between 
2002 and the IP. It rose by 83 % between 2002 and 2003, by a further 153 percentage 
points  in  2004  and  by  a  further  30  percentage  points  in  the  IP.  During  the  IP,  the 
volume of dumped imports stood between 180 000 and 250 000 pieces.  

(33)  The  corresponding  market  share  held  by  dumped  imports  increased  by  around  20 
percentage  points  between  2002  and  the  IP,  to  reach  a  level  between  42  and  50  % 
during the IP. In terms of indices, the market share grew by 21 % in 2003, by a further 
43 percentage points in 2004 and by 6 percentage points in the IP. Overall, the rise in 
market shares was 70 % between 2002 and the IP. 

(34)  Finally, average prices of dumped imports decreased by around 5 % between 2002 and 
the  IP,  and  on  a  model-to-model  comparison,  dumped  imports  undercut  the 
Community industry’s prices by between 34,4 % and 42 %, depending on the exporter 
concerned.  

(35)  Similarly,  recital  (68)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  is  superseded  as  follows.  The 
volume  of  dumped  imports  of  the  product  concerned  originating  in  the  Republic  of 
Korea  increased  significantly  by  266  %  between  2002  and  the  IP  and  the 
corresponding  market  share  held  by  dumped  imports  increased  by  around  20 
percentage  points  between  2002  and  the  IP.  The  average  prices  of  dumped  imports 
were  consistently  lower  than  those  of  the  Community  industry  during  the  period 
considered.  On  a  model-to-model  weighted  average  comparison,  dumped  imports 
undercut the Community industry’s prices by between 34,4 % and 42 %, depending on 
the exporter concerned, while for some models, price undercutting was even larger. 

(36) 

In  the  absence  of  any  further  new  and  substantiated  information  or  argument  on  the 
aspect  of  injury,  recitals  (41)  to  (71)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  hereby 
confirmed, with the exception of recitals (44) to (47) and recital (68) which have been 
addressed above. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
G. 

CAUSATION 

1. 

Effects of the dumped imports 

(37)  As stated above, it was found that Samsung had a de minimis dumping margin during 
the IP. However, the significant increase in the volume of dumped imports by 266 % 
between 2002 and the IP, the increase of the corresponding market share by around 20 
percentage points, as well as the undercutting found coincided with the deterioration 
of the economic situation of the Community industry. 

2. 

Effects of other factors 

Imports of the product concerned manufactured by Samsung 

(38)  Since Samsung had a de minimis dumping margin during the IP, it was necessary to 
examine whether imports from Samsung could, nevertheless, have caused any injury 
to  the  Community  industry.  In  order  to  preserve  confidentiality,  data  concerning 
Samsung are presented below in an indexed format. 

Volume of imports from Samsung (pieces)
Index (2002=100)
Market share of imports from Samsung
Index (2002=100)
Prices of imports from Samsung (EUR/piece)
Index (2002=100)

100

100

100

156

cannot be disclosed
183
cannot be disclosed
90
cannot be disclosed
86

103

87

2002

2003

2004

IP

188

88

86

(39)  The  volume  of  imports  originating  from  Samsung  increased  by  88  %  between  2002 
and  the  IP.  Specifically,  it  rose  by  56  %  between  2002  and  2003,  by  a  further  27 
percentage points in 2004 and by a further 5 percentage points in the IP. During the IP, 
the volume of imports originating from Samsung stood between 100 000 and 170 000 
pieces.  

(40)  The corresponding market share held by imports originating from Samsung decreased 
by  around  5  percentage  points  between  2002  and  the  IP,  to  reach  a  level  comprised 
between 28 % and 36 % during the IP. In terms of indices, the market share grew by 
3 %  in  2003,  but  then  declined  by  13  percentage  points  in  2004  and  by  a  further  2 
percentage points in the IP. Overall, the decline in market shares was 12 % between 
2002 and the IP. 

(41)  Finally,  average  prices  of  imports  originating  from  Samsung  decreased  by  around 
14 %  between  2002  and  the  IP,  and  on  a  model-to-model  comparison,  imports 
originating from Samsung undercut the Community industry’s prices by 34,1 %. 

(42)  Given  the  rise  in  the  volume  of  imports  originating  from  Samsung  and  the 
undercutting found, it cannot be excluded that those imports contributed to the injury 
suffered  by  the  Community  industry.  However,  it  is  also  observed  that:  (i)  imports 
originating from Samsung increased at a far slower pace than other imports originating 
in  the  Republic  of  Korea  during  the  period  2002  to  the  IP;  (ii)  in  contrast  to  other 
Korean imports, imports originating from Samsung lost around 5 percentage points of 
market  share  between  2002  and  the  IP;  (iii)  the  resulting  presence,  during  the  IP,  of 
imports originating from Samsung on the Community market in terms of both volume 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
and market share was substantially smaller than that of other Korean imports; and (iv) 
the model-to-model price comparison showed that Samsung’s prices, albeit lower than 
those  of  the  Community  industry,  were  consistently  higher  than  those  of  the  other 
Korean imports. 

(43)  As a consequence, it is concluded that imports originating from Samsung contributed 
to  the  injury  caused  to  the  Community  industry,  but  to  a  substantially  lesser  degree 
than  that  of  dumped  imports  from  the  remaining  two  Korean  producers.  The  impact 
linked  to  imports  originating  from  Samsung  is  therefore  considered  not  sufficient  to 
break the causal link between dumped imports and the resulting injury experienced by 
the Community industry. 

(44) 

In the absence of any further new and substantiated information or argument, recitals 
(72) to (96) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed, with the exception of 
the first sentence of recital (73) as seen above. 

H. 

COMMUNITY INTEREST 

(45) 

In the absence of any new and substantiated information or argument in this particular 
respect, recitals (97) to (114) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

I. 

DEFINITIVE MEASURES 

(46) 

In  view  of  the  conclusions  reached  with  regard  to  dumping,  injury,  causation  and 
Community  interest  and  in  accordance  with  Article  9(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  a 
definitive  anti-dumping  duty  should  be  imposed  at  the  level  of  the  dumping  margin 
found, but should not be higher than the injury margin presented in recital (119) of the 
provisional Regulation and confirmed in the present Regulation. As the injury margins 
were always  higher  than the dumping margins, the measures should  be  based on  the 
latter. 

(47)  The definitive duties will therefore be as follows: 

Company 

Injury margin 

Dumping 
margin 

Proposed  anti-
dumping duty 

Daewoo Electronics Corporation 

98,5% 

LG Electronics Corporation 

74,8% 

3,4% 

12,2% 

3,4% 

12,2% 

Samsung Electronics Corporation 

66,3% 

de minimis 

0% 

All other companies 

98,5% 

12,2% 

12,2% 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
J. 

DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY 

(48) 

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found for the exporting producers in 
the  Republic  of  Korea  and  given  the  level  of  the  injury  caused  to  the  Community 
industry,  it  is  considered  necessary  that  the  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional 
anti-dumping  duty  imposed  by  the  provisional  Regulation  should  be  definitively 
collected to the extent of the amount of  definitive duties imposed. As the three-door 
model  is  now  excluded  from  the  product  definition  (see  recitals  (12)  to  (16)  above) 
and  definitive  duties  are  lower  than  the  provisional  duties,  amounts  provisionally 
secured on imports of the three-door model or in excess of the definitive rate of anti-
dumping duties shall be released. 

(49)  The  individual  company  anti-dumping  duty  rates  specified  in  this  Regulation  were 
established  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  country-wide  duty  applicable  to  ‘all  other 
companies’)  are  thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in  the 
country  concerned  and  produced  by  the  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 duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’. 

(50)  Any claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty 
rates (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  sales  and  export  sales  associated  with  e.g.  that  name 
change  or  that  change  in  the  production  and  sales  entities.  If  appropriate,  the 
Regulation will accordingly be amended by updating the list of companies benefiting 
from individual duties, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

A  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  is  hereby  imposed  on  side-by-side  refrigerators,  i.e. 
1. 
combined  refrigerator-freezers  of  a  capacity  exceeding  400  litres,  with  the  freezer  and 
refrigerator compartments placed side-by-side, falling within CN code ex 8418 10 20 (TARIC 
code 8418 10 20 91) and originating in the Republic of Korea.  

EN 

13 

   EN 

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

Company 

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

Anti-
Dumping 
duty (%) 

TARIC 
Additional 
Code 

3,4% 

A733 

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

  12,2% 

A734 

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

0% 

A735 

All other companies 

  12,2% 

A999 

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

3. 
apply. 

Article 2 

The  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  pursuant  to 
1. 
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  355/2006  on  imports  of  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,  produced  by  Samsung  Electronics  Corporation  falling 
within CN code ex 8418 10 20 shall be released.  

2. 
The  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  pursuant  to 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 355/2006 on imports of combined refrigerator-freezers of a 
capacity exceeding 400 litres, with two doors on the refrigerator compartment above and one 
door on the freezer compartment below, falling within CN code ex 8418 10 20 and originating 
in the Republic of Korea shall be released. 

3. 
The  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  pursuant  to 
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  355/2006  on  imports  of  side-by-side  refrigerators,  i.e. 
combined  refrigerator-freezers  of  a  capacity  exceeding  400  litres,  with  the  freezer  and 
refrigerator  compartments  placed  side-by-side,  falling  within  CN  code  ex  8418  10  20  and 
originating in the Republic of Korea shall be definitively collected. The amounts secured in 
excess of the definitive duties as set out in Article 1(2) above, shall be released.  

EN 

14 

   EN 

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

Article 3 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

15 

   EN