1. 4. 95 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 73/3 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 710/95 of 27 March 1995 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of colour television receivers originating in Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Smgapore and Thailand and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 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 subsi- dized imports from countries not members of the Euro- pean Economic Community (), and in particular Article 12 thereof, < Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commis- sion after consultation of the Advisory Committee, Whereas : A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES (1)  The  Commission, by  Regulation (EC) No 2376/94 (%), hereinafter referred to as the ‘provi- sional Regulation’, imposed a provisional anti- dumping duty on imports into the Community of colour television receivers (hereinafter referred to as ‘CTVs’) originating in Malaysia, the People’s Repu- blic of China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand. By Regulation (EC) No 140/95(®) the Council extended the validity of this duty for a period of two months expiring on 3 April 1995. B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE (2  Following the imposition of the provisional anti- dumping duty, several interested parties submitted comments in writing, requested, and were granted, hearings. (3)  Upon request, parties were informed of the essen- tial facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive duties and the definitive collection of amounts secured by way of a provisional duty. They were also granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to the disclosure. 49 The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered and, where appropriate, the () OJ No L 209, 2. 8. 1988, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 522/94 (OJ No L 66, 10. 3. 1994, p. 10). ® OJ No L 255, 1. 10. 1994, p. S0. () OJ No L 21, 28. 1. 1995, p. 1. ) 6) Commission’s findings were modified to take account of them. C. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE PRODUCT As no new evidence nor arguments have been presented regarding the product under considera- tion and the like product, the findings set out in recitals 8 to 18 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. D. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY After the imposition of the provisional duties, several exporters questioned the standing of the complainants, on the grounds that the criteria used to define the producers’ ‘main core of business’ (recital 23 of the provisional Regulation) were too weak, particularly in the light of the fact that imports by the Community industry from the countries concerned accounted for up to 25 % of their Community production sold in the Commu- nity. It should be recalled in this respect that Arsticle 4 (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Basic Regulation’) leaves a margin of discretion to the Community institutions to interpret the term Community industry as refer- ring to the rest of Community producers, where the other producers are related to the exporters concerned or are themselves importers of the product concerned. In this particular case sufficient evidence has been provided to show that the purpose of the imports of the Community producers from countries concerned in the proceeding was to stay on the market with as full a range of models as possible or even to protect market niches which would have disappeared without sales of the models in ques- tion. Account was also taken of the fact that the commercial decision to import CTVs from the countries concerned had been taken by the produ- cers in question at least partly as a consequence of the proven injurious dumping and that the prices of these imports did not undercut already depressed prices on the Community market. In addition one exporter argued that, due to the allegedly insufficient standing of the complainants, injury had been assessed on too narrow a basis. The standing of the complainants has been the subject of an in-depth examination by the Commission