94/992/EC: Commission Decision of 21 December 1994 concerning applications for refund of anti-dumping duties collected on imports of certain compact disc players originating in Japan (Amroh BV, PIA Hi-fi)

COMMISSION DECISION
of 21 December 1994
concerning applications  for refund of anti-dumping duties collected on imports of certain compact disc players originating  in Japan (Amroh BV, PIA Hi-fi)
(94/992/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES
,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 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), as last  amended by Regulation (EC) No 522/94 (2), and in particular Article 16 thereof,
Whereas,
I. PROCEDURE
(1) Between May 1992 and July 1993, Amroh BV and PIA Hi-fi, both independent  importers respectively based in Weesp (Netherlands) and Weiterstadt (Germany) made nine  applications for the refund of definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EEC)  No 112/90 (3) on certain compact disc players originating in Japan and paid by them on the  importation from May 1992 to June 1993 of compact disc players produced and exported by Accuphase  Laboratory. They argued that they had paid export prices significantly in excess of normal value.  Their applications are admissible, in particular concerning time limits since they were introduced  within the three months deadline set by the provisions of Article 16 of Regulation (EEC) No  2423/88.
(2) Three of the applications of Amroh BV pertained to goods imported from May to July 1992, a  period already covered by a Commission Decision (4) concerning applications for refund of  anti-dumping duties collected on imports of compact disc players originating in Japan. That  Decision, where a refund was granted to the amount of 16,9 % of the value used by the relevant  authorities for calculating the amount of anti-dumping duty, should also apply to those three  transactions since their inclusion in the calculation has no impact on the actual dumping margin  for the period considered.
(3) The Commission decided to handle the other applications, for which importation took place  between February 1993 and June 1993, according to the rules on recurring applications laid down in  point I (4) of the Commission notice concerning the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties (5). The  information required for judging the validity of the applications was provided for the period 21  December 1992 to 20 June 1993 inclusive and sent direct to the Commission by Accuphase Laboratory  at the applicants' request.
(4) The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed to be necessary for the purpose of  the examination of the refund applications.
(5) The refund applicants have been informed of the results of the examination of their requests. A  reasonable period of time was granted to make representations on the above information and due  account has been taken of these representations where considered appropriate.
II. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION
(6) The definition of the product under considereration is  identical to that contained in Regulation (EEC) No 112/90, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 819/92  (6). The product considered is certain compact disc players falling within CN codes ex 8519 31 00,  ex 8519 39 00, ex 8519 99 10, ex 8520 31 90, ex 8520 39 10, ex 8520 39 90 and ex 8527 31 91 (Taric  codes 8519 31 00*10, 8519 39 00*10, 8519 99 10*10, 8520 31 90*30, 8520 39 10*10, 8529 39 90*10 and  8527 31 91*10) (7) (hereafter referred to as CDP's).
III. REFUND FINDINGS
A. Merits of the claim
(7) Article 16 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88  makes it the responsibility of the importer which has paid an anti-dumping duty and is applying for  refund of that duty to show that the duties collected exceed the dumping margin calculated for the  relevant reference period. This actual dumping margin should, as far as possible, be calculated  using the same method as that applied during the initial investigation.
(8) The Commission considered that the information supplied by the applicants and the exporter  regarding normal value and the export prices of the different CDP models was sufficient to  calculate correctly the weighted average actual dumping margin.
1. Normal value
(9) One of the CDP models produced by Accuphase Laboratory was sold on the  domestic market in sufficient quantities to be representative and at prices which permitted  recovery of all costs reasonably allocated in the normal course of trade. Accordingly, normal value  was determined on the basis of the weighted average prices of this model of CDP net of any rebates  or discounts. For the other models, normal value was constructed in conformity with Article 2 (3)  (b) (ii) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88.
2. Export price
(10) Since Accuphase Laboratory sold CDP's directly to independent importers in  the Community, export prices were determined on the basis of the net prices actually paid or  payable for the products sold for export to the Community.
3. Comparison
(11) For the purpose of a fair comparison between normal value and export price and  in accordance with Article 2 (9) and (10) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, the Commission took  account of differences affecting price comparability where a direct relationship of these  differences to the sales under consideration could be satisfactorily demonstrated. Adjustments were  in particular made in respect of freight, insurance, handling expenses and sales personnel  salaries. All comparisons were made at the same level of trade, at the ex-factory level.
(12) As far as differences in guarantee costs are concerned, the Commission established that the  adjustment claimed by the applicant to take account of the level of these domestic costs was partly  based on transactions falling outside the investigation period. Therefore, the Commission  calculated the average cost for this item on all sales of stand-alone CDP's for the relevant period  and adjusted the normal value on this basis.
(13) The adjustments claimed for credit costs and commissions were only made in so far as they were  sufficiently evidenced.
(14) Accuphase Laboratory also made a claim for sales promotion expenses. However, Article 2 (10)  (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 does not provide for adjustments for differences in such  expenses which are not directly related to the sales under consideration since such differences do  not affect price comparability and the claim was, accordingly, rejected.
4. Dumping margin
(15) For the reference period concerned, the Commission compared the weighted  average normal value of each CDP model, ex-factory, with the ex-factory export price charged by  Accuphase Laboratory for each of the consignments sold for export to the Community during the same  period. The Commission found the average dumping margin during the period under consideration to be  lower than the duty established in Regulation (EEC) No 112/90 as being applicable to this producer.  The Commission found the weighted average dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of total cif  value, for the period under consideration to be 15,7 %. Consequently, the applicants have shown  that the duty collected at a rate of 32 % exceeds the actual dumping margin for the period  concerned.
B. Amounts to be reimbursed
(16) The amounts to be reimbursed to the applicants, represented the  difference between the rate of duty collected and the actual dumping margin, are equal to 16,3 %  (32 % minus 15,7 %) of the value used by the relevant authorities to calculate the level of  anti-dumping duty.
(17) For the transactions mentioned in recital 2, the amounts to be reimbursed are equal to 16,9 %  of the value used by the relevant authorities to calculate the level of the anti-dumping duty.
(18) The applicants were informed of the results of this examination and made no comments. The  Commission informed the Member States and gave its opinion on the matter. No Member State raised  any objection,