CELEX: 31993R0611
Language: en
Date: 1993-03-15 00:00:00
Title: Council Regulation (EEC) No 611/93 of 15 March 1993 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community of certain electronic microcircuits known as DRAMs originating in the Republic of Korea and exported by companies not exempted from this duty, and collecting definitively the provisional anti-dumping duty

Avis juridique important

|

31993R0611

Council Regulation (EEC) No 611/93 of 15 March 1993 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community of certain electronic microcircuits known as DRAMs originating in the Republic of Korea and exported by companies not exempted from this duty, and collecting definitively the provisional anti-dumping duty  

Official Journal L 066 , 18/03/1993 P. 0001 - 0010 Finnish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 21 P. 0074  Swedish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 21 P. 0074 

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 611/93  of 15 March 1993 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community of certain  electronic microcircuits known as DRAMs originating in the Republic of Korea and exported by  companies not exempted from this duty, and collecting definitively the provisional anti-dumping  dutyTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped  or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community  (1)  (hereinafter referred to as the 'basic Regulation`), and in particular Article 12 thereof, Having regard to the proposal presented by the Commission after consultation within the Advisory  Committee as provided for by the above Regulation, Whereas: A.  PROVISIONAL MEASURES (1)  By Regulation (EEC) No 2686/92  (2) (hereafter referred to as the  'provisional duty Regulation`), the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports  into the Community of certain types of electronic micro-circuits known as DRAMs (dynamic random  access memories) originating in the Republic of Korea and falling within CN codes 8542  11  12,  8542  11  14, 8542  11  16 and 8542  11  18 for finished DRAMs, within CN code ex  8542  11  01 for  DRAM wafers, within CN code ex  8542  11  05 for DRAM dice or chips and within CN code ex  8473  30   10 or ex  8548  00  00 for DRAM modules. By Regulation (EEC) No 53/93  (3), the Council extended  the validity of this duty for a period not exceeding two months. B.  SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE (2)  Following the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty, two  Korean producers, -  Goldstar Electron Co., Ltd, Seoul, -  Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Seoul, and one DRAM-user company located in the Community, -  Hewlett Packard, Les Ulis, France, submitted comments in writing. Parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard by  the Commission. (3)  The parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it  was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures and the definitive  collection of amounts secured by way of provisional duty. They were also granted a period within  which to make representations subsequent to the disclosure. (4)  The parties' comments were considered, and the Commission altered its conclusions where deemed  justified. (5)  The investigation overran the normal duration of one year provided for in Article 7 (9) (a) of  the basic Regulation due to the complexity of the investigation, in particular, in the light of the  numerous DRAM types, the number of sales transactions and the calculation of the normal value on a  quarterly basis. C.  PRODUCT UNDER INVESTIGATION, LIKE PRODUCT (6)  In its provisional duty Regulation (see  recitals 12 to 16) the Commission had established that all types of DRAM wafers, DRAM dice and  chips, finished DRAMs, variations of DRAMs and DRAM modules, regardless of density and package were  to be considered as one product. (7)  One Korean producer continued to argue that DRAM wafers and DRAM dice on the one hand, and  finished DRAMs on the other, could not be considered as one product since DRAM wafers and DRAM dice  were not identical to finished DRAMs. In its submission, this producer raised no other new  arguments as compared with those raised at the provisional stage, and the Council, for the reasons  given in recitals 14 to 16 of the provisional duty Regulation, confirms the Commission's conclusion  contained therein. (8)  Another Korean producer argued that finished DRAMs of densities higher than 16M should not be  viewed as one product with DRAMs of lower densities, because higher density DRAMs, e.g. 64M DRAMs,  were not yet on the market. It was argued, in this context, that it could not be determined whether  these DRAMs could be considered like products. (9)  In this respect, the Commission concluded in recital 15 of the provisional duty Regulation  that all DRAMs, regardless of density and package, were covered by the present proceeding. Past  experience confirmed, indeed, that there was a clear continuity between the physical  characteristics and use of DRAMs of succeeding generations, and the Commission did not find any  indication which would justify different conclusions, e.g. for 64M DRAMs. The Commission noted,  however, that, should sufficient evidence of changed circumstances regarding future DRAM densities  become available, a review in accordance with Article 14 (1) of the basic Regulation could be  requested by any interested party. (10)  The Commission therefore concluded that, for the purpose of the present proceeding, all  types, densities and variations of DRAM products, as detailed in recitals 11 and 12 of the  provisional duty Regulation, were to be viewed as one product, i.e. the product under  consideration. The Council confirms this conclusion. (11)  As regards the question whether DRAM products sold on the Korean market and those sold by the  Community industry on the Community market constituted like products to the product under  consideration, no new comments were received. Therefore the Council confirms that the DRAMs sold on  the Korean market, those sold by the Community industry on the Community market and those exported  to the Community (all hereinafter referred to as DRAMs) are alike in all respects within the  meaning of Article 2 (12) of the basic Regulation. D.  DUMPING 1.  Normal value (12)  No comments relating to the determination of normal values on a quarterly basis were  received. Therefore the Council confirms the approach taken by the Commission as set out in recital  19 of the provisional duty Regulation. (13)  In determining the cost of manufacturing at the provisional stage, the Commission had taken  into account the long production cycle time for DRAMs. In order to establish the effective  manufacturing costs of DRAMs sold in a given quarter in these circumstances, the Commission  considered that the cost of manufacturing for DRAMs sold in one quarter was that incurred in the  preceding quarter. The cost accounting data submitted by the Korean producers concerned were  adjusted accordingly. (14)  One Korean producer claimed that this approach was not justified because its own accounting  system took account of the production cycle time. The methodology used by this company in order to determine the total actual per unit cost of  production for finished DRAMs sold in a given quarter, i.e. based on stock valuation of work in  progress did not, however, properly reflect the length of the DRAM production process which  consisted of a number of consecutive production steps. The Commission therefore considered this methodology inappropriate and maintained its approach  taken for the provisional findings. The Council confirms this view. (15)  The aforementioned producer also argued that an adjustment made by the Commission concerning  its depreciation expenses to ensure comparability between the investigation and preceding periods  was not appropriate. The Korean producer claimed that the Commission should have used the data  submitted since they were based on its cost accounting data. (16)  The approach taken by the Commission for the calculation of the constructed normal value at  the provisional stage ensured, however, the consistent allocation of this producer's costs of  production over time and avoided a distorted allocation of the depreciation expenses in the  investigation period compared with prior periods. This approach was fully in line with the  provisions of Korean accounting rules. The Commission, therefore, considered it necessary to maintain its approach and the Council  confirms this view. (17)  Two Korean producers claimed that the approach taken by the Commission with respect to the  constructed normal value was not appropriate in particular with regard to the amount of research  and development (hereinafter 'R& D`) costs and other selling, general and administrative  (hereinafter 'SG& A`) costs. (18)  With respect to R& D, the Korean producers claimed that R& D costs incurred in the past and  deferred to the period of investigation should be the basis for the determination of the cost of  production. In recital 22 of the provisional duty Regulation, the Commission set out its approach  with respect to R& D costs. Given the nature of these costs, in particular the uncertainty of their  recoverability, of the timing of such recoverability and of relating R& D costs incurred in the  past to sales carried out during the period of investigation, the Commission, in line with  consistent practice as regards the sector of integrated circuits, had considered it appropriate,  from both an economic and an accounting point of view, that all R& D expenses actually incurred in  the period of investigation and related to DRAMs, be it current or future products, should be  allocated to DRAMs sold in the period of investigation. It should be noted that the approach taken  by the Commission was fully in line with the provisions of Korean accounting rules. In conclusion, the Commission maintained and the Council confirms this approach with respect to R&  D costs. (19)  With respect to SG& A costs incurred in relation to foreign currency exchange transactions,  the Commission took account of submissions from two Korean producers and allowed the deferral of  such costs, which related mainly to long-term foreign currency debt. The Commission adjusted its  cost calculations accordingly. The Council confirms this approach. (20)  Furthermore, one Korean producer, which had no profitable sales on the domestic market,  claimed that there were sufficient profitable sales on the domestic market of another Korean  producer, which had cooperated during the investigation, for this latter producer's SG& A and  profit information to be used in the calculation of the first producer's constructed normal value. (21)  In this context, the Commission had established that, for two Korean producers, all sales of  DRAMs and, for the remaining Korean producer, significantly more than 90  % of the sales of DRAMs  on the domestic market were made at prices which did not permit recovery of all costs reasonably  allocated. After the adjustment described in recital 19, above unprofitable domestic sales of the  producer concerned remained at a level significantly higher than 90  % of total sales. Therefore,  as detailed in recital 20 of the provisionsl duty Regulation, the Commission considered that, in  view of the small volume of sales on the domestic market in the ordinary course of trade, domestic  sales could not form the basis for the determination of the profit rate used for the calculation of  the constructed normal value. Consequently, the profit rate to be used for the constructed normal value had to be determined on  another reasonable basis in accordance with Article 2 (3) (b) (ii) of the basic Regulation. With respect to the SG& A costs, the Commission used, for the determination of normal value, the  costs incurred by each Korean producer on the domestic market. These costs were indeed considered  reliable since all three Korean producers had substantial sales on the domestic market and were  therefore added to manufacturing costs in accordance with the abovementioned Article. The Council confirms these conclusions. (22)  In recital 23 of the provisional duty Regulation, the Commission detailed the factors taken  into account in the determination of the profit rate used in the constructed normal values. Two  Korean producers, while not questioning the method used by the Commission, argued that this profit  margin was set at too high a level. Taking particular account of the high future R& D costs and the  large capital investment requirements of this industry, the Commission maintained its conclusion  that, for the purpose of the present proceeding, a profit margin of 13,5  % on turnover was  reasonable and representative for the product concerned and for the market conditions in Korea. The Council confirms this view. 2.  Export prices (23)  Export prices were determined for the purpose of the preliminary findings on the basis of the  prices actually paid or payable for the products sold for export to the Community. The Council confirms this approach. (24)  With regard to exports to related importers, for which the export prices were constructed in  accordance with Article 2 (8) (b) of the basic Regulation one Korean producer disagreed with an  adjustment made by the Commission at the provisional stage with respect to two types of costs  incurred between importation and resale. (25)  With respect to one of the cost items in question, i.e. advertising costs, the Commission had  made an assessment, at the provisional stage, on the basis of the facts available following the  provisions of Article 7 (7) (b) of the basic Regulation since this producer's related importers in  the Community had submitted incomplete information. In its new submission, the Korean producer  concerned had not supplied any information on actual costs incurred by the importers with respect  to their advertising activities. The Commission therefore maintained the approach taken at the  provisional stage. Furthermore, with respect to a second item, i.e. costs incurred in relation to foreign currency  exchange transactions, the Korean producer claimed that only the part of these costs corresponding  to realized gains and losses should be included. In this context, the Commission maintained its  approach that all costs resulting from foreign currency exchange operations should be taken into  consideration, since they were related to this importer's purchase and sales activities and were  short-term in nature in comparison with the investigation period. In addition, this approach was  reflected in this importer's treatment of these costs in its income statement. The Council confirms these conclusions. 3.  Comparison (26)  Comments concerning the comparison of export prices with normal value were received with  respect to allowances requested by two Korean producers. These producers claimed that allowances  for differences in payment terms should be made for the full period of credit actually granted to  domestic customers, even though no credit period was agreed with customers at the time of sale.  These requests for allowance had not been accepted by the Commission in its provisional  determination. One producer claimed that the allowance should be calculated on the basis of the average period of  credit granted and the other claimed such calculation should be done on the basis of the credit  periods specifically established for each sales transaction to its domestic customers. In both  cases, the producers requested that the interest rate applicable in Korea for short-term borrowing  should be used for this purpose. (27)  The Commission noted, however, that in accordance with Article 2 (9) (a) of the basic  Regulation, allowance for differences in payment terms can be granted only to the extent that they  affect price comparibility. Payment terms can affect prices paid by a customer only where these are  agreed at the date of sale (i.e. date of the conclusion of the sales contract or the date of the  invoice at the latest) because only then can the cost of credit associated with the payment terms  be considered to have influenced the buyer's decision. Consequently, any costs resulting from a  period of credit not agreed at the date of sale have to be considered as a general cost for the  selling company. With respect to the claim of the two Korean producers, no fixed period of credit was specified at  the date of sale. Moreover, one producer could not establish the link between payments received and  individual sales transactions, whereas for the other producer credit periods varied considerably  across different customers and for individual customers across different sales transactions. In  such circumstances the Commission would normally have rejected these claims. In this case however,  and in conformity with the approach taken in previous proceedings, the Commission granted an  adjustment for these sales on the basis of 30 days of credit, which was considered a reasonable  estimate of the period of credit for the buyer. The Council confirms this approach. 4.  Dumping margins (28)  The definitive examination of the facts showed the existence of dumping in respect of imports  of the product concerned originating in Korea. The weighted average dumping margins definitively established for the producers concerned and  expressed as a percentage of the total cif Community border value of imports, exceeded 50  % with  the exception of Samsung Electronics Co., for which the weighted average dumping margin was  established at 14,6  %. (29)  As far as any non-cooperating producers are concerned, no comments on the conclusions reached  by the Commission in recital 28 of the provisional duty Regulation were received. In these circumstances, the Council confirms these conclusions and the dumping margin determined  for non-cooperating producers is set at a level of the highest dumping margin. E.  INJURY (30)  The Commisson had determinated in its preliminary conclusions that material  injury had been sustained by the Community producers (recitals 36 to 48 of the provisional duty  Regulation). No new arguments were subsequently put forward in this connection. Therefore the Council confirms the above conclusions. F.  CAUSATION (31)  The Commission pointed out in its preliminary conclusions that the  substantial injury sustained by Community producers had been caused by dumped Korean imports  (recitals 49 to 61 of the provisional duty Regulation). No new arguments were put forward in this  connection. Therefore the Council confirms that the material injury sustained by Community producers has been  caused by dumped Korean imports. G.  COMMUNITY INTEREST (32)  As stated in recital 70 of the provisional duty Regulation, the  purpose of anti-dumping measures is to remedy the injurious effect of unfair trading practices and  to re-establish a fair competitive situation which, as such, is in the general interest of the  Community. Moreover, in recitals 62 to 77 of the provisional duty Regulation, the Commission, for  the purspose of the provisional findings, had determined that, in accordance with Article 11 of the  basic Regulation, the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures was in the interests of the  Community. (33)  One Korean producer argued that the adoption of anti-dumping measures would not be in the  interest of the Community user industry. In support of this claim, the Korean producer argued in  general terms that the mere fact that the user industry made a detailed submission prior to the  imposition of provisional duties in this case showed that this user industry was concerned about  the negative implications of this anti-dumping proceeding with respect to its competitive  situation. (34)  With respect to the situation of the Community DRAM user industry in general, in recital 69  of the provisional duty Regulation it has been shown that only one of a number of existing user  groups put forward such a claim without in any way quantifying it with respect to the effect of  anti-dumping measures imposed on Korean DRAM imports. In support of its claim, this user group  merely alleged that the anti-dumping measures imposed in the framework of the Japanese DRAM  anti-dumping proceeding pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2112/90  (1) had had the effect of  increasing DRAM prices in the Community. This claim, however, was in contrast with information  obtained by the Commission from reliable market sources. Indeed, the Commission, in the framework  of regular market monitoring after the coming into force of the anti-dumping measures with respect  to Japanese DRAMs, had observed a positive impact in the Community market resulting from the  anti-dumping measures concerning DRAMs of Japanese origin, in particular, an increase in the level  of competition and a steadiness in the trend of prices. With respect to DRAM prices in the  Community and in other world markets, the Commission had established that, while prices varied,  price differences in the Community were not substantial compared with other markets. (35)  One company using DRAMs for the production of electronic goods inside the Community claimed  that anti-dumping measures would have a negative effect on its position in comparison with  competitors using DRAMs in their production outside the Community. This user company further argued  and supplied supporting specific information that, after the provisional anti-dumping measures, the  prices of one of the Korean producers had increased and that, as a consequence, its own input costs  had risen. (36)  In general, it should be noted in this context that the situation of a single user company  representing only a small fraction of total DRAM use in the Community could not be considered  representative for the user industry in the Community as a whole. Concerning the first argument put forward by the company, on the question of prices in other  markets, the Commission noted the recent imposition of substantial anti-dumping duties by the  authorities of the USA, which is one of the markets with the greatest world-wide DRAM consumption,  with respect to DRAM's originating in Korea. Moreover, it should be noted that the anti-dumping measures in the present proceeding were set at a  level and in a form to minimize any negative effect on the DRAM user industry. Concerning the  second argument of the company, and as discussed in recital 69 of the provisional duty Regulation,  the fact that advantages have been gained in the past through unfair trade practices cannot be a  justification for their continuation. This user company was, furthermore, operating in an industry  facing general economic difficulties world-wide which were not attributable to high electronic  component prices in the Community, nor specifically to high DRAM prices. Accordingly, the  Commission considered that any increase in costs due to DRAM purchase price increases after the  imposition of provisional duties, could not have been substantial. (37)  One Korean producer argued that any anti-dumping measures with respect to Korean producers  would reduce competition in the Community DRAM market by eliminating some smaller competitors from  the market. (38)  In recital 63 of the provisional duty Regulation it was stated, however, that, in view of the  substantial and increasing financial losses incurred by the Community industry, not to take  anti-dumping measures would threaten its viability and consequently eliminate companies from the  DRAM market. Furthermore, taking into account that the definitive anti-dumping measures are imposed  in a flexible form and at a level which will not prevent any Korean producer from continuing to  sell on the Community market, the Commission considered that the anti-dumping measures would not  reduce the level of competition in the Community DRAM market. (39)  In conclusion, in assessing the Community interest in recitals 64 and 65 of the provisional  duty Regulation, the Commission had concluded that any possible increase in the input cost for the  user industry would have to be viewed against the background of the situation of the Community  industry which is operating in a key technological sector and which has, due to significant dumping  by Korean companies, been incurring substantial financial losses which have threatened its  viability. This assessment has also to be seen in light of the anti-dumping measures taken in the  USA which may lead to increased Korean imports into the Community. Finally, the Commission considered that not to impose anti-dumping measures with respect to dumped  imports of DRAMs originating in Korea would undermine the beneficial effects of the anti-dumping  measures in force with respect to DRAMs originating in Japan as mentioned in recital 34 and would  be discriminatory towards the Japanese producers concerned. In these circumstances, the Commission  considered that it is in the interests of the Community to impose anti-dumping measures concerning  imports of DRAMs originating in Korea. The Council confirms this conclusion. H.  ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES (40)  In establishing the level of the definitive anti-dumping measures  to be imposed, given that the injury sustained by the Community industry was in the form of heavy  financial losses due to substantial price undercutting by the Korean producers, the Commission  considered it appropriate to ensure that prices of the Community industry can achieve a reasonable  level and that any future price depression caused by dumped Korean imports can be prevented. In  order to obtain this result, the export prices of the Korean producers should be at a level where  dumping is eliminated and sales at prices below the Korean producers' costs of production are  prevented, ensuring that the injury caused to the Community industry is eliminated to a  satisfactory extent. At the same time, consideration was given, by the Commission, to setting the  anti-dumping measures at a level which would not put the Community user industry at an undue  competitive disadvantage towards its competitors in world markets. (41)  With respect to the form of the definitive anti-dumping measures, the Commission took into  account the fact that the DRAM industry is a fact moving industry characterized by learning curve  effects yielding substantial cost of production reductions over a relatively short time period,  that there is also interdependence of sales and costs of DRAM products of succeeding generations  which might result in substantial fluctuations in market prices and on increasing number of DRAM  models, and concluded that the definitive anti-dumping measures should allow sufficient flexibility  to follow these patterns. (42)  In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to impose an anti-dumping duty at the level  sufficient to eliminate the effect of injurious dumping. The Korean producers, however, have  offered undertakings on the basis of their resale prices for their products to the first  independent customers in the Community. Pursuant to Commission Decision 93/157/EEC  (1), the  undertakings are deemed acceptable. These undertakings are based on the actual quarterly costs of  DRAM production in Korea plus an amount for profit and therefore meet the objectives as set out in  recital 40. (43)  In order to safeguard the effectiveness of the above undertakings and to avoid circumvention  of the anti-dumping measures, a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed on any other imports  originating in Korea. (44)  Given the special circumstances of this proceeding, in particular the fact that all known  Korean DRAM producers exporting to the Community have offered acceptable undertakings, the  Commission considered that a duty lower than the highest dumping margin established during the  investigation was sufficient to achieve these objectives. Therefore the definitive anti-dumping  duty should be set at a level of 24,7  %, which represents the highest individual level of price  undercutting of any Korean producer. The Council confirms this conclusion. (45)  In the course of the investigation three companies located outside the Community, namely: -  Hitachi Ltd, Japan, -  Motorola Incorporated, USA, and -  Motorola Malaysia SDN BHD., Malaysia, have claimed and supplied supporting evidence that they have imported DRAMs originating in Korea to  the Community having purchased the DRAMs concerned from Korean producers in the framework of  general purchase contracts. Given the nature of the undertakings offered by all the Korean producers concerned for their direct  and indirect exports to the Community, the Commission considered it appropriate to exclude DRAM  imports into the Community by the three purchasing companies mentioned above from the definitive  anti-dumping duty on imports of DRAMs originating in Korea if the DRAMs thus imported were  purchased in the framework of a general purchase contract from the Korean producers concerned under  the terms of the respective undertakings and if the DRAMs purchased were destined for export to the  Community. The Council confirms this view. I.  COLLECTION OF PROVISIONAL DUTIES (46)  With respect to provisional duties, it is Community  practice to collect these duties definitively if substantial injurious dumping provisionally  determined is confirmed at the definitive stage and if the situation with respect to the injurious  effect of the dumped imports to the Community market has not fundamentlly changed since the  imposition of the provisional duties. In the present case, substantial injurious dumping was  definitively confirmed. However, due to the specific aspects of the situation, in particular the  fact that after acceptable undertakings had been offered by all three Korean producers which cover  the entirety of imports originating in Korea, it was considered that the interest of the Community  did not require the collection ofthese duties for their full period of validity but only for the  initial period of validity of four months. The Council confirms this approach, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 1.  A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports into  the Community of certain electronic microcircuits known as DRAMs (dynamic random access memories)  originating in the Republic of Korea and falling within CN code 8542  11  12, 8542  11  14, 8542   11  16, 8542  11  18, ex  8542  11  01 (Taric code: 8542  11  01*10), ex  8542  11  05 (Taric code:  8542  11  05*30), ex  8473  30  10 (Taric code: 8473  30  10*40) or ex  8548  00  00 (Taric code:  8548  00  00*20). 2.  For the purpose of this Regulation, DRAMs comprise all variations, types and densities  including DRAM wafers and DRAM dice or DRAM chips, and multi-combinational forms of DRAMs such as  stack DRAMs and DRAM memory modules. 3.  The rate of duty shall be 24,7  % expressed as a percentage of the net  free-at-Community-frontier price before duty (Taric additional code: 8699). 4.  Imports of products referred to in paragraph 1 shall be exempt from the duty (Taric additional  code: 8698), provided that: (a)  they are produced and exported to the Community by the following companies whose undertakings  have been accepted by Commission Decision 93/157/EEC: -  Goldstar Electron Co., Ltd, Seoul, -  Hyundai Electronics Industries Co., Ltd, Icheon, -  Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Seoul; or (b)  they are produced, and sold for subsequent exportation to the Community, by one of the  companies listed in the first indent above to one of the following companies: -  Hitachi Ltd, Japan, -  Motorola Incorporated, USA, -  Motorola Malaysia SDN BHD., Malaysia. In this case, exemption from the duty shall be conditional upon presentation to the customs  authorities of documentation (the format is contained in Annex I) from the producer ('Issuing  company`), confirming that it directly sold the products for which the exemption is sought for  export to the Community to one of the three companies above ('Exporter`), which in turn exported  them directly to a company located in the Community ('Consignee`). The documentation shall  furthermore contain a clear description of the device type(s) sold, the total quantity per device  type, the unit price per device type, a statement that the price was not lower than the applicable  undertaking price, the invoice number and the confirmation that these products were produced and  sold for export to the Community by the said company in accordance with the provisions of the  undertakings referred to in Article 1 of Commission Decision 93/157/EEC. This documentation shall  be issued by the Korean producer concerned at the time the invoice is issued. 5.  The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply. Article 2 The amounts secured by way of a provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Regulation  (EEC) No 2686/92 shall be definitively collected for the period until and including 17 January  1993. Article 3 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the  Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all  Member States. Done at Brussels, 15 March 1993. For the Council The President M. JELVED (1)  OJ No L 193, 25. 7. 1990, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation  (EEC) No 2967/92 (OJ No L 299, 15. 10. 1992, p. 4).  (1) See page 37 of this Official Journal.