WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3085/98 by Karin RIIS-JØRGENSEN to the Commission. Digital input and output sockets on video cameras
C 207/26 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 7. 1999 potential and degree of readiness as well as, for example, the need for a cost-benefit analysis including the direct and indirect effects of projects on employment. (1) COM(98) 2000 final. (2) COM(98) 138 final. (1999/C 207/033) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3085/98 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission Subject: Digital input and output sockets on video cameras (16 October 1998) A digital video camera purchased, for example, in Singapore, which has the same television system as in Denmark, is equipped with the international standard interphase IEEE1394 which in practice means that it is possible, among other things, to playback the recorded programme digitally onto a hard disk as well as play the signal digitally from the hard disk back to the camera after final editing. Although the cameras are identical to look at, the latter operation is not possible if the camera is purchased in the EU since the cameras are programmed differently. On what grounds did the Commission decide that digital video cameras sold within the EU should not have the international standard interphase IEEE1394 input socket? Furthermore, what is the reason for the 14 % import duty imposed on digital video cameras with digital recording as against 4,9 % duty on cameras without the digital recording option? In the event of quota arrangements existing for digital video cameras, does it consider this to be reasonable when it is borne in mind that much of the technological development in this area takes place outside the EU? Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (14 January 1999) The Commission has not taken a decision whereby digital electronic consumer equipment such as digital video cameras fitted with the IEEE 1394 interface cannot be imported or marketed in the Community. Nor has it decided to require that such equipment should be fitted with that type interface. Indeed, manufacturers and retailers are free to use whatever digital interface, if any, they consider to be most suitable for the market concerned. With regard to the tariff treatment of digital video cameras the Commission refers the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question E-3811/97 by Mrs Hawlicek (1) concerning customs discrimination against camcorders with input sockets. Video cameras with plugs for the recording of television programmes receive the same tariff treatment as video recorders, which means a normal rate of duty of 14 % in conformity with the Community’s common customs tariff. Video cameras without plugs for the recording of television programmes cannot replace video recorders and such products are subject to a tariff treatment similar to that of other cameras resulting in a normal rate of duty of 4,9 %. The fact that a product is digital and works in conjunction with a computer does not change its tariff treatment. Hence, this reply is also valid for digital video cameras. Finally the Commission would point out that digital video cameras are not subject to a quota arrangement. (1) OJ C 187, 16. 6. 1998