Article 2 
(10) (e) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 refers to adjustments mentioned in Article 2 (9) (a) and 2 (10) (a) to (c). These adjustments can only be claimed for 'differences affecting price comparability'. An allowance was consequently only considered to be deminimis if the 'difference' between the allowance for the export price and the normal value was less than 0,5 % of the respective price or value and the Council confirms this conclusion. IV. Dumping margins (19) Normal value and export prices were compared on a transaction by transaction basis for each exporter which fully cooperated during the investigation. The final examination of the results of this comparison shows the existence of dumping in respect of car radios originating in the Republic of Korea, the margin of dumping being equal to the amount by which the normal value exceeded the price for export to the Community. (20) For one exporter which did not submit essential information on export sales to the Community within a reasonable priod (see recital 8) and for which information concerning an appropriate normal value for the models could not be verified, the dumping margin was established for the quantities not reported in its reply to the Commission's questionnaire on the basis of the facts available in accordance with Article 7 (7) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88. In these circumstances, the most reasonable facts available were considered to be those established during the investigation and in order to avoid discriminatory treatment, the margin of dumping established for the exporters not cooperating in this proceeding was considered the most appropriate for these sales. For the exports verified during the investigation the dumping margin was established in the manner described in recital 19. (21) The dumping margins varied according to the exporter, and the weighted average margin for each exporter, expressed as a percentage of cif value, free-at-Community frontier, was as follows: - Carmen Electronic Co., Ltd, 3,4 % - Daesung Precision Co., Ltd, 14,1 % - Daewoo Electronics Co., Ltd, 4,7 % - Goldstar Co., Ltd, 3,9 % - Haiti Electronics Co., Ltd, 0,6 % - Hyorim Co., 10,6 % - Hyundai Electronic Industries Co., Ltd, 10,8 % - Inkel Corporation Ltd, 11,4 % - Kolon International Co., 8,9 % - Osio Electronics Co., Ltd, 20,1 % - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, 20,8 % - Se Kyung Co., 4,7 % - Sung Moon Trading Co., Ltd, 18,5 % - Tong-Hae Sil Up Co., Ltd, 8,7 % - Tong Kook General Electronics Co., Ltd, 14,3 % - Woojin Electric Co., Ltd, 15,1 % - Woojin Industrial Co., Ltd, 15,1 % - Woo Kwang Co., Ltd, 16,7 % - Yung Tai Electronics Ind. Co., Ltd. 29,3 % The Council confirms these margins and considers that the dumping margin finally determined for Haitai Electronics Co., Ltd can be regarded as deminimis and that there is no justification for taking account of them for the purpose of adopting any protective measures required. (22) In the case of the exporters who failed to reply to the Commission's questionnaire or did not make themselves known during the investigation the dumping margin was determined on the basis of the facts available in accordance with Article 7 (7) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88. Since a large number of companies did not cooperate in this proceeding the Commission considered it appropriate to calculate this margin on the basis of the weighted average margin of three car radio models of the exporter with the highest dumping margin which were considered to be representative, so far as the Commission could judge, for car radios exported by non-cooperating exporters. On that basis the dumping amounted to 34,4 %. In this context the Council confirms the Commission's conclusion that assigning a lower dumping margin to these exporters would provide an incentive to avoid the payment of duties, constitute a bonus for non-cooperation and would not give appropriate recognition to those companies which fully cooperated in this proceeding. E. Community Industry (23) In recitals 33 and 34 of Regulation (EEC) No 313/92 the Commission came to the conclusion, that the three Community producers which were represented by the Association for Legal Auto-Radio Measures (ALARM) constitute the Community industry within the meaning of Article 4 (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88. No interested party objected to this and the Council confirms this conclusion. F. Injury (24) In its provisional findings, the Commission had concluded that the Community car radio industry had suffered material injury. It based its findings principally on the Korean exporters' extremely rapid increase in volume of exports and market penetration over a period covering 1985 to the end of the investigation period, the important price undercutting practised by the exporters during that investigation period and the price erosion resulting thereform for the Community industry which suffered significant losses in market share combined with a continuous decrease in profits. (25) No new facts concerning these findings were submitted to the Commission after publication of Regulation (EEC) No 313/92. None of the data used by the Commission in its provisional findings was contested by the Korean exporters. However, some contested the evaluation made by the Commission of the evolution of Korean imports of car radios. They submitted that, according to the Commission's preliminary findings, these imports had decreased by at least five percentage points as from 1987 to the investigation period after having increased dramatically from 1985 to 1987. In their view, an essential indicator of injury according to Article 4 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 had therefore not been established. The Council considers, however, that an increase in import values during the reference period is not an essential indicator of injury but only one of a number of indicators to be taken into consideration. In this context it notes that it was not contested by the Korean exporters that during the five-year period examined by the Commission for assessing the economic trends Korean imports of car radios increased by more than 180 % in volume and 12,0 percentage points in market share despite a slight decline in volume of these imports between 1988 and 1990, which was attributable to circumstances with which the exporters were necessarily faced as explained in recitals 36 and 46 of Regulation (EEC) No 313/92 and which caused difficulties, independently of any reason relating to the Community market, for the Korean exporters to continue to produce and export in still larger quantities during the investigation period. (26) With respect to the provisional findings concerning the other factors relevant for the determination of injury as provided for in Article 4 (2) (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, no other arguments or facts were presented to the Commission. Consequently, in addition to the confirmation that Korean imports of car radios showed a significant penetration on the Community market, the Commission's findings concerning the undercutting comparison as set out in rectial 38 of Regulation (EEC) No 313/92, and the state of Community industry as set out in recitals 39 and 42 of that Regulation, in particular as regards loss of market share combined with the significant erosion of profits suffered by the Community industry, are also confirmed by the Council. (27) The Council therefore also confirms the conclusions of the Commission set out in recitals 43 and 44 of Regulation (EEC) No 313/92 that the Community car radio industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88. G. Causation of injury by dumping I. Effect of dumped imports (28) In recitals 45 to 54 of Regulation (EEC) No 313/92, the Commission concluded that the significant increase of Korean low priced imports coincided with an equally rapid loss of market share by the Community industry, price erosion for the Community's car radio models combined with a heavily deteriorating profit situation for the complainant companies producing car radios in the Community. (29) None of the arguments submitted by the exporters rebuts the coincidence in time between the flood of dumped Korean imports during the investigation period and the injurious situation sustained by the Community industry. As already stated in recital 45 of Regulation (EEC) No 313/92, the car radio market is very price sensitive and competitive. Therefore, imports of the product in question in substantial quantities at low and dumped prices had necessarily a depressive effect on the prices, market share and consequently on profitability of the Community industry and inevitably caused injury. In addition, the effect of the low prices of the dumped products on the profitability of sales of the Community industry prevented it from utilising its production capacity in the Community while demand increased steadily and deprived it of the economies of sale which would have resulted from an increased sales volumes. All these elements show that the imports from Korea, through the effects of dumping, have had a direct and significant impact on the situation of the Community industry. II. Effect of other factors (30) Some Korean exporters supported by the Electronic Industries Association of Korea (EIAK) argued that the impact of the imports originating in People's Republic of China, Malaysia and Singapore was unjustifiably minimized by the Commission given their rising market shares and equally low or even lower prices and these factors were relevant concerning any decrease in sales, market share, production volume, capacity utilisation and employment of the car radio industry in the Community. (31) In addition, the Korean exporters contested the Commission's position as explained in recital 49 of Regulation (EEC) No 313/92 according to which it is determined that the Community industry could not have contributed to its own injury. They argued that not all Community producers imported car radios from the three third countries in question and that the imports effected by certain Community producers might have caused injury to the other Community produce. (32) The Commission considers and the Council confirms that a distinction has to be made between other third country imports brought in by the Community industry and those carried out by other companies. The Commission has already explained in its provision findings (see recital 48 of Regulation (EEC) No 313/92) that the imports effected by the Community industry accounted for approximately 50 % of all imports from the People's Republic of China, Malaysia and Singapore. However, these imports were effected by the Community industry in order to try to maintain its competitiveness in the Community car radio market. An intensified use of production facilities outside the Community by the Community industry is a legitimate and justified reaction of self-defence to the effect on its business operations of the imports of significant quantities of low-priced Korean products. While the commitment of the Community industry to continue producing in the Community was clearly apparent (see recital 57 of Regulation (EEC) No 313/92), its only possibility of avoiding an aggravation of its already deteriorating situation was to further diversify its production sources and to import products manufactured at lower costs as long as fair conditions of competition were not restored in the Community market. These imports replaced partly the sales of car radios which could have been produced and sold profitably in the Community had there not been the pressure from Korean imports for which dumping was found during the investigation period. Thus the real cause of any injury which may have resulted from these imports was the volume and the price levels of the dumped Korean imports. In this context, the Council confirms the Commission findings as stated in recital 49 of Regulation (EEC) No 313/92. (33) With regard to the market share of the remaining imports from the three countries in question, it has to be noted that these only increased by 5,4 %, from 6,4 % in 1985 to 11,8 % in the investigation period, while that of Korean imports increased by 12 %, from 15,0 % to 27,0 % during the same period. No information concerning the prices of these imports was available. Therefore, even if the imports in question have had some impact on the level of prices on the Community market, it still remains true that the already mentioned differences with Korean imports allow the conclusion that the injury caused by the dumped imports originating in Korea, considered separately, must still be regarded as material. (34) The Council hereby confirms all these findings and conclusions. H. Community interest (35) In its provisional findings, the Commission considered and weighed up the interests of the Community industry as well as those of end users (see recitals 55 to 59 of Regulation (EEC) No 313/92). It concluded that, unless a faire competitive situation is reestablished, the Community industry would have to cease production in the Community within the next few years with effect that its overall competitiveness in the consumer electronic sector would be further weakened owing to the loss in technical know-how in production and research and development in this sector. This development would not in the end be in the consumers' interest since any advantage in being supplied with dumped car radios might later disappear owing to reduced competition when the Community industry had to give up its production. The Commission, therefore, determined that it is, on balance, in the interest of the Community to grant protection to the Community industry against unfair competition from dumped imports. (36) Following the imposition of the provisional duty no interested party objected to these findings. The Council therefore confirms these findings and concludes that it is in the Community interest to adopt anti-dumping measures to eliminate the injurious effects of the dumped imports. These measures should take the form of anti-dumping duties. I. Duty (37) As regards the level of duty to be imposed, the Commission determined that the increase to the export prices of each individual exporter, which would be required to permit the Community industry a reasonable return on sales of the like product should exceed the dumping margins as established. Consequently, the duty should correspond in accordance with Article 13 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 to the individual dumping margins as established in recital 21. (38) Equally, in the case of the companies which failed to reply to the Commission's questionnaire or did not make themselves known during the investigation, the duty to be imposed should correspond to the dumping margin established for these producers, i.e. 35,4 %. (39) The Council confirms these levels as finally established by the Commission. J. Collection of provisional duties (40) In the view of the importance of the dumping margins found and the seriousness of the injury caused to the Community producers, the Council considers it necessary that the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties should be collected, either in full or to a maximum of the duty definitively imposed in those cases where the definitive duty is less than the provisional duty, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 1. A definitive anti-dumping duty of 34,4 % of the net, free-at-Community frontier price, before duty is hereby imposed on imports of radio-broadcast receivers of a kind used in motor vehicles, falling within CN codes ex 8527 21 10 (Taric code: 8527 21 10 * 10), ex 8527 21 90 (Taric code: 8527 21 90 * 10) and ex 8527 29 00 (Taric code: 8527 29 00 * 10), originating in the Republic of Korea (additional code: 8622). These duties shall apply to broadcast receivers not capable of operating without an external source of power, of a kind used in motor vehicles, whether or not combined, in the same housing, with sound recording or reproducing apparatus, excluding apparatus capable of receiving also radio-telephony or radio-telegraphy. 2. The rate of anti-dumping duty in respect of the apparatus referred to in paragraph 1 and produced by the following undertakings shall be: - Carmen Electronic Co., Ltd, Seoul 3,4 % (additional code: 8612) - Daesung Precision Co., Ltd, Seoul 14,1 % (additional code: 8610) - Daewoo Electronics Co., Ltd, Seoul 4,7 % (additional code: 8616) - Goldstar Co., Ltd, Seoul 3,9 % (additional code: 8605) - Hyorim Co., Seoul 10,6 % (additional code: 8611) - Hyundai Electronic Industries Co., Ltd, Kyongju 10,8 % (additional code: 8608) - Inkel Corporation Ltd, Seoul 11,4 % (additional code: 8607) - Kolon International Co., Seoul 8,9 % (additional code: 8620) - Osio Electronics Co., Ltd, Kyongju 20,1 % (additional code: 8619) - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Seoul 20,8 % (additional code: 8678) - Se Kyung Co., Bucheon City, Kyongju 4,7 % (additional code: 8615) - Sung Moon Trading Co., Ltd, Seoul 18,5 % (additional code: 8613) - Tong-Hae Sil Up Co., Ltd, Seoul 8,7 % (additional code: 8614) - Tong Kook General Electronics Co., Ltd, Seoul 14,3 % (additional code: 8606) - Woojin Electric Co., Ltd, Seoul 15,1 % (additional code: 8609) - Woojin Industrial Co., Ltd, Seoul 15,1 % - Woo Kwang Co., Ltd, Kyungsangbuch-Dou 16,7 % (additional code: 8618) - Yung Tai Electronics Ind. Co., Ltd, Seoul 29,3 % (additional code: 8617) of the net, free-at-Community frontier price, before duty. 3. The duties shall not apply to imports of the products specified in paragraph 1, manufactured by Haitai Electronics Co., Ltd, Inchon, (additional code: 8621). 4. The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply. Article 2 The amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 313/92 shall be definitively collected at the rates of provisional duty applicable in the case of Kolon International Co., Seoul and at the rates of duty definitively imposed in all other cases. 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, 4 August 1992. For the Council The President N. LAMONT (1) OJ No L 209, 2. 8. 1988, p. 2. (2) OJ No L 34, 11. 2. 1992, p. 8. (3) OJ No L 156, 10. 6. 1992, p. 1. (4) OJ No L 256, 7. 9. 1987, p. 15. (5) OJ No C 114, 8. 5. 1990, p. 4.