Council Regulation (EC) No 1289/2006 of 25 August 2006 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: 2006-08-25
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: South Korea, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, electrical engineering, household electrical appliance, originating product

31.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 236/11

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1289/2006

of 25 August 2006

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
Community,

establishing the European

nating in the Republic of Korea and the definitive
collection of the amounts secured by way of the provi-
sional duty. They were also granted a period within
which to make
to the
disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on
the basis of which definitive measures are imposed.

representations

subsequent

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22
December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from
countries not members of the European Community (1)
(the
‘basic Regulation’) and in particular Article 9 thereof,

(5)

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

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 notice (2)
initiating an anti-dumping proceeding on imports into
the Community of certain side-by-side refrigerators origi-
nating in the Republic of Korea. On 1 March 2006, the
Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 355/2006 (3) (‘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
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.

anti-dumping measures,

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

All parties were informed of
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 origi-

the essential

(9)

(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.
(3) OJ L 59, 1.3.2006, p. 12.

(6)

(7)

(8)

C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

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 refrig-
erator-freezers (‘CRF’) with a capacity above 400 litres
since a segmentation of
those refrigerators would be
inconsistent with the past practice of the Community
from other
institutions, would
reality
interested parties and would ignore market
(claim (i)).

disregard

evidence

three-door

to segment

side-by-side models

This exporter further claimed that should claim (i) be
the CRF market
rejected, any attempt
should exclude
(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 character-
the models which are
istics (notably the doors) of
relevant, but
In particular,
the internal configuration.
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)

It is the standing practice of the Community institutions
concerned to consider
when defining the product
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.

L 236/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.8.2006

familiar

said exporter

to all operators

(10) Having paid careful attention to all the submissions made
by all the interested parties to this proceeding, the inves-
tigation 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
in this
particular business. It has even been acknowledged by
the
in several written submissions.
the claim based on the ‘evidence from
Furthermore,
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
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
large capacity CRFs with a capacity
evidence that all
should be considered to be the
above 400 litres
product
as
the
described above into which they fall. Indeed, it was estab-
lished that the technological and physical characteristics
underlying these two products are totally different.

concerned regardless of

segments

(14)

side-by-side refrigerator. The Commission was informed
inner compartments were placed differently in a
that
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’.

the

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
above-mentioned exporter. After definitive
disclosure, in the light of further evidence provided by
the positions expressed by some
the same exporter,
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
be
characteristics,
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
In this
respective views and contradicting each other.
respect, therefore, no clear conclusion could be drawn
in one direction or the other.

three-door model

cannot

the

(11)

(12)

(13)

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 justi-
the product
fication for
concerned in order to encompass all CRFs as requested
by the exporter concerned. As a consequence, claim (i)
had to be rejected.

expanding the

scope of

2. Claim (ii)

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.

least

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
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 two swing doors
placed side-by-side was considered the most immediately
visible feature. As to consumer perception, a key element
was the fact
itself had repeatedly
the claimant
marketed and advertised the three-door model as a

the presence of

that

(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 provi-
sional 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 clas-
sifiable 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.

31.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 236/13

2. Export price

first

to the

to the

customer

independent

submitted that

final disclosure was made

(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
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
the product concerned had been used.
importer of
interested
After
parties, one exporting producer
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,
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
information
could be acquired within the framework of this investi-
gation. 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 proceeding (1).

it was decided that

importer's profit

(19)

In the absence of any further comments, the contents of
the provisional Regulation
recitals 23 to 24 of
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
exporting
producers, adjustments were made to the normal values
established for some models to reflect the market value
the different physical characteristics between the
of
exported,
the
model
pursuant
the basic Regulation.
Two of the exporting producers contested the adjustment
made at the provisional stage.

and
domestically
to Article 2(10)(a) of

sales of

sold

one

the

(21) One exporting producer claimed that no adjustment
there were
should have been made because even if
differences
characteristics between the
exported models and the domestically sold models

in physical

(1) See Council Regulation (EC) No 2041/2000 (OJ L 244, 29.9.2000,

p. 33, recital 26).

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
finishing and
like
ice
temperature
following a
normal economic logic, such differences should have
an impact on the market value of these models.

and water dispenser, door

system. Therefore,

control

(22)

the provisional

in order to
The other exporting producer for which,
properly reflect the market value of the differences in
physical characteristics, an adjustment to the submitted
these differences had been made by the
values for
Commission at
stage, contested the
resulting calculation. Subsequent to the final disclosure,
the company pointed at some elements in the Commis-
sion'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 inves-
tigated and it was found that certain adjustments made
by the Commission to the physical characteristics claim
the company might have led to distorted normal
of
It was therefore decided to construct normal
values.
values
this company in cases where no direct
for
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
the
by
invoices
companies.
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.

enforced
It was also demonstrated that

contractually

agreed

and

(24) One exporting producer requested the exclusion of its
related importers' sales of damaged and/or malfunc-
tioning 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
related indeed to malfunctioning or damaged
sales
these
products
to
as
products were
In view of the
customers and prices of regular sales.
absence
company's
comparable
domestic market, no meaningful comparison could be
made with regard to these sales. Therefore, this claim
was accepted.

and prices of

customers

compared

and that

on the

entirely

distinct

sales

of

L 236/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.8.2006

(25)

reported ocean freight

The same exporting producer contested the Commis-
sion'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
costs were
Regulation. The
rejected because they were invoiced to the exporter by
a related company. The exporting producer now demon-
strated that the related company was a logistics entity
that contracted the transport services to independent
the
shipping companies.
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,
the reported
ocean transport costs could be considered reliable and
the calculations were amended accordingly.

It was further proven that

it was decided that

(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 provi-
sional 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 indi-
vidual export and domestic sales transactions would
not have reflected the full degree of dumping being
the weighted average normal value was
practiced,
individual export trans-
compared to the prices of all
three exporting
actions
it was confirmed that significant differences
producers,
in sales prices amongst regions existed and that,
for
the reasons already set out in recitals 31 to 34 of the
provisional Regulation,
indeed warranted to
it was
compare the weighted average normal value to the
prices of all
to the
Community. The claims of the exporting producers are
therefore dismissed.

to the Community. For all

transactions

individual

export

(28)

light of

the above

adjustments,

and after
In the
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:

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. 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 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
it is necessary to distinguish those
IP (see recital 28),
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 confiden-
from the two
tiality, data concerning the imports
remaining Korean producers
are presented in an
indexed format.

of

dumped

Volume
imports
from the Republic of Korea
(pieces)

2002

2003

2004

IP

cannot be disclosed

Index (2002 = 100)

100

183

336

366

Market share of dumped imports
from the Republic of Korea

cannot be disclosed

Index (2002 = 100)

100

121

164

170

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

cannot be disclosed

Index (2002 = 100)

100

92

95

95

Daewoo Electronics Corporation

LG Electronics Corporation

3,4 %

12,2 %

Samsung Electronics Corporation

de minimis

(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
further 30
percentage points in the IP. During the IP, the volume
of dumped imports
stood between 180 000 and
250 000 pieces.

in 2004 and by a

31.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 236/15

(33)

(34)

(35)

corresponding market

share held by dumped
The
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.

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.

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,
the Community industry's
dumped imports undercut
prices by between 34,4 % and 42 %, depending on the
exporter concerned, while for some models, price under-
cutting was even larger.

(39)

(40)

(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.

Volume of imports from
Samsung (pieces)

2002

2003

2004

IP

cannot be disclosed

Index (2002 = 100)

100

156

183

188

Market share of imports from
Samsung

cannot be disclosed

Index (2002 = 100)

100

103

90

88

Prices of imports from Samsung
(EUR/piece)

cannot be disclosed

Index (2002 = 100)

100

87

86

86

imports originating from Samsung
The volume of
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.

The corresponding market share held by imports origi-
nating from Samsung decreased by around 5 percentage
to reach a level
points between 2002 and the IP,
comprised between 28 % and 36 % during the IP.
In
the market share grew by 3 % in
terms of
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.

indices,

G. CAUSATION

1. Effects of the dumped imports

(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 %.

(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
Community industry.

the economic situation of

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 confiden-
tiality, data concerning Samsung are presented below in
an indexed format.

that:

(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
is
it
suffered by the Community industry. However,
also observed
from
imports originating
(i)
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;
the resulting presence, during the IP, of
imports originating from Samsung on the Community
market in terms of both volume 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.

(iii)

L 236/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.8.2006

(43) As a consequence,

it is concluded that imports origi-
nating 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
linked to imports
two Korean producers. The impact
originating from Samsung is therefore considered not
sufficient
link between dumped
imports and the resulting injury experienced by the
Community industry.

to break the causal

(44)

In the absence of any further new and substantiated
information or argument, recitals 72 to 96 of the provi-
sional 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:

(48)

(49)

J. DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL
DUTY

it

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,
the amounts
is considered necessary that
secured by way of provisional
anti-dumping duty
imposed by the provisional Regulation should be defini-
tively 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) 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.

the

duty

company

individual

findings of

the present

anti-dumping

(as opposed to the

The
rates
specified in this Regulation were established on the
basis of
investigation.
Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that
to these companies. These
investigation with respect
duty rates
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’.

(e.g.

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

Company

Injury
margin

Dumping
margin

Proposed
anti-
dumping
duty

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Daewoo Electronics Corporation

98,5 %

3,4 %

3,4 %

Article 1

LG Electronics Corporation

74,8 % 12,2 %

12,2 %

Samsung Electronics Corporation

66,3 %

de
minimis

0 %

All other companies

98,5 % 12,2 %

12,2 %

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on side-
1.
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 (TARIC code 8418 10 20 91) and originating
in the Republic of Korea.

31.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 236/17

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

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.

Company

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

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

Samsung
Samsung Main
Taepyeong-ro, Jung-gu, Seoul

Electronics
Bldg,

Corporation,
2-ga,
250,

Anti-dumping
duty
(%)

TARIC
additional
code

3,4 %

A733

12,2 %

A734

0 %

A735

All other companies

12,2 %

A999

Unless otherwise

3.
concerning customs duties shall apply.

specified,

the provisions

in force

2.
The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping
duties pursuant to 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 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), shall be released.

Article 2

Article 3

1.
The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping
duties pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 355/2006 on imports of

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

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

Done at Brussels, 25 August 2006.

For the Council
The President

E. TUOMIOJA