Article 2 
(13) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, as being representative. the Commission also notes that this exporter had requested to the Commission to limit the number of domestic transactions being reported during the investigation in view of their extremely large number. In these circumstances the Commission considers that the use of sampling techniques is well justified in the present case. The Council confirms these conclusions. (18) For purposes of definitive findings the Commission took account of new information available concerning the total value of the sales to the Community of the cooperating exporters and the dumping margins were modified accordingly. (19) The weighted average margins of dumping for each exporter, expressed as a percentage of the total cif value are as follows: - Eina Co. Ltd. 35,8 % - Nippon Chemi-con Corporation 11,6 % - Rubycon Corporation 30,1 %. (20) As far as the other non-cooperating exporters are concerned, no comments on the conclusions in recitals 23 and 24 of the Provisional Duty Regulation were received by the Commission with the exception of the request received from one exporter to reply to the questionnaire well after the time limit set in the Notice of initiation and shortly before the publication of the Provisional Duty Regulation. This request could not be accepted as the company concerned failed to respect any of the procedural rules applicable to anti-dumping proceedings. In these circumstances the Council confirms the conclusions as set out in recitals 23 and 24 of the Provisional Duty Regulation. The dumping margin determined for non-cooperating exporters is 75 %. F. INJURY (21) The Commission found in recital 33 of the Provisional Duty Regulation, that the Community industry had suffered material injury, within the meaning of Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, mainly in the form of loss of profitability and loss of market share. (22) One of the exporters requested that a specific type of capacitor being sold to a client in Italy should be excluded from the scope of the proceeding as, it argued, its sales could not have caused injury to the Community industry. The claim was based on the allegation that this product was being sold at a price higher than that offered by a Community producer and that, being sold in only one Member State it could not cause injury to the Community industry in the rest of the Community. The Commission notes in respect of this request that the consideration of this specific type of capacitors as a like product has not been disputed and that it has been the consistent practice of the Commission and the Council to establish the existence of injury to the industry concerned by assessing the combined effect of all dumped imports of the product concerned into the Community without examining the impact of a particular type of product or a particular transaction. The Commission cannot therefore accept the request of the exporter. The Council confirms this conclusion. (23) No other comments from the interested parties were received concerning the conclusions of the Commission on injury as set out in recitals 25 to 33 of the Provisional Duty Regulation. These conclusions are confirmed by Council. G. CAUSALITY (24) The Commission noted in recital 34 of the Provisional Duty Regulation that the increase in volume and market share of the dumped imports coincided with the deterioration of the situation of the Community industry. The Commission examined whether other factors might have been the cause of the injury to the Community industry and concluded in recital 38 that the dumped imports of Japanese origin had, taken in isolation, caused material injury to the Community industry. (25) It was argued by one of the exporters that the problems being faced by the Community producers were not the result of the exports originated in Japan but rather of the fact that the Community producers were less cost efficient than the Japanese exporters and that the products put on the market by the Community producers were overspecified in relation to the requirements of the market. Without examining the issue whether the Japanese exporters actually enjoy some cost advantages it must be stressed that the Community industry, as explained in recital 35 of the Provisional Duty Regulation, has not been able to make use of its extended capacity and to benefit from the economies of scale due to the very substantial price undercutting of the Japanese imports. The Commission considers that, in any case, with such substantial undercutting of prices, which is higher than any presumed cost advantage, these presumed cost advantages are irrelevant. Moreover, the Commission notes that the exporters concerned by this proceeding consistently sold in the Community below their cost of production is indicated in recitals 26 and 40 of the Provisional Duty Regulation. In these circumstances the Commission considers that, irrespective of the existence of cost advantages even if these were accepted, this flagrant dumping of the exporters causes injury to the Community industry. It was further argued in particular that Community producers were selling overspecified DIN and snap-in capacitors. The results of the investigation have shown however, that Community producers manufacture these products in accordance with the specifications requested by their customers. The argument cannot, therefore, be considered as substantiated and the allegations of this exporter cannot be accepted. (26) No other arguments concerning the findings of the Commission on the causation of injury set out in recitals 34 to 38 of the Provisional Duty Regulation have been made. The Commission ratifies these findings. H. COMMUNITY INTEREST (27) In its provisional findings the Commission considered the interest of the Community manufacturing industry, of the user industry and of the final consumers and came to the conclusion in recital 43 of the Provisional Duty Regulation that it was in the interest of the Community to remove the effects of the injury caused to the Community industry by the dumping found. (28) The Commission has further examined the impact that the proposed duties might have on users of capacitors in the Community. For a popular consumer product, the cost of the LAEC incorporated into one unit accounts for approximately 1,7 % of the cost of the material content, or for approximately 1 % of the ex factory price, including labour, overheads and profit. The impact of a 75 % duty on the material content cost will be an increase of 1,275 % while at the ex factory level the result will be an increase of that price by 0,75 %. The impact of the duty on final consumers will be even less and may therefore be considered as negligible. (29) Although the Commission recognizes, as indicated in recital 40 of the Provisional Duty Regulation, that every reduction in cost is important for the consumer electronics industry, the Commission must balance all interests involved when considering whether the interest of the Community requires the imposition of measures. In this particular case the Community industry, in view of the consistent under cost pricing of the exporters, might be forced to shut down if fair conditions of trade are not restored and, in such circumstances, the present advantages to the user industry of being supplied at lower prices may disappear. In these circumstances the Commission considers that the interest of the Community calls for the re-establishment of a fair competitive situation and that any disadvantage which might result are in any event, limited both in scale and in time. I. DUTY (30) In establishing the level of the definitive duties to be imposed the Council confirms the Commission's methodology and findings outlined in recitals 44 to 47 of the Provisional Duty Regulation with regard to imports from cooperating exporters and from exporters which did not reply to the Commission's questionnaire within the established time limit. No arguments from any interested parties were received by the Commission concerning these findings. (31) As to the exporter referred to in recital 5 of this Regulation the Commission has concluded that in view of the impossibility of determining its export prices, definitive findings in respect of the level of duty should be made on the basis of the facts available in accordance with Article 7 (7) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 as for the other non-cooperationg exporters. The facts available taken into consideration for the determination of the duty are those referred to in recitals 24 and 47 of the Provisional Duty Regulation. J. UNDERTAKINGS (32) Several exporters offered price undertakings to the Commission. The Commission examined the offers and considered that in view of the wide variety of different types of LAECs and the rapid technology developments, efficient monitoring of the adherence of the exporters to the terms of the undertaking would not be practicable. In these circumstances the Commission considers that the undertakings cannot be accepted. The exporters have been informed accordingly. K. COLLECTION OF PROVISIONAL DUTIES (33) In view of the dumping margins established and the seriousness of the injury caused to the Community industry, the Council considers it necessary that amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties should be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of the duty definitively imposed, and for those exporters for which the definitive duty is higher than the provisional duty to the extent of the amount of the provisional duty imposed, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of large electrical capacitors, aluminium electrolytic, with a CV product (capacitance multiplied by rated voltage) between 18 000 and 310 000 mc (micro-coulombs), at a voltage of 160 V or more and with a diameter of 19 mm or more and at a length of 20 mm or more, originating in Japan and falling within CN code: ex 8532 22 00 (Taric codes 8532 22 00 * 11 and 8532 22 00 * 91). 2. The rate of duty shall be 75 % expressed as a percentage of the net, free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty (Taric additional code 8665), except when manufactured by the following companies for which the rate of duty expressed as a percentage of the net, free-at Community-frontier price, before duty shall be as set out below: Article 2 The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 1451/92 shall be definitively collected at the rates of duty definitively imposed in the case of Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation and of Rubycon Corporation and at the rates of provisional duty applicable in all other cases. Article 3 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of 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, 30 November 1992. For the Council The President T. EGGAR (1) OJ No L 209, 2. 8. 1988, p. 1. (2) OJ No L 152, 4. 6. 1992, p. 22. (3) OJ No L 286, 1. 10. 1992, p. 1.