12. 10. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 281/1 (Acts whose publication is obligatory) \ ' COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2934/90 of 9 October 1990 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ball bearings with greatest external diameter not exceeding 30 mm originating in Thailand and collecting definitively the provisional duty THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protections 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 within the Advisory Committee as provided for under the abovementioned Regulation, Whereas : A. Provisional measures (1)  The Commission, by Regulation (EEC) No 1613/90 ("), imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of ball bearings with greatest external diameter not exceeding 30 mm, falling within CN code 84821010 and originating in Thailand. B. Subsequent procedure ()  Following the imposition of the provisional duty, the two producer/exporters (hereafter called ‘the exporters’) named in Regulation (EEC) No 1613/90 and the complainant each requested, and were granted, a hearing with regard to the findings set out in this Regulation. They also made written - submissions making known their views on these findings. C. Dumping (i) Normal value (3 With regard to normal value, the exporters contested the rate of profit used by the Commis- sion in its provisional calculations. () OJ No L 209, 2. 8. 1988, p. 1. () OJ No L 152, 16. 6. 1990, p. 24. ) O] © &) They pointed out that this profit margin represents a very substantial increase compared to profit rates used in the previous proceeding relating to the same product originating.in the same country and that without such a high profit margin no dumping would have been found. They further alleged that the sales relied upon by the Commission in order to establish the profit margin (as described in the fourth paragraph of recital 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 1613/90) were made at exceptionally high prices to a single customer and should, therefore, not be taken into account in establishing the profit margin to be included in the constructed normal value. As a secondary argument, i.e. were the method used in Regulation (EEC) No 1613/90 to be confirmed, they requested that adjustments be made for expenses incurred by their parent company’s Singapore sales company, Minebea Singapore Ltd, from whom the goods were trans- ferred to the first independent customer. The Council does not accept the exporters’ argu- ments. The fact that a lower rate of profit was considered reasonable in an earlier proceeding, in the light of the situation prevailing then, does not render the different rate established in the present case, on the basis of the new factual situation, unreasonable. In addition, findings cannot be influenced by the consideration that the use of a lower margin of profit in the present case would have led to a smaller or non-existent dumping margin. As regards the nature of the sales relied upon by the Commission to establish the profit margin for . normal value (fourth paragraph of recital 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 1613/90), the Council accepts that these sales were made to a single customer but notes that several different bearing types were involved and that the quantities were very large. In addition, there is no substance to the claim that the selling prices were exceptionally high and no concrete evidence has been produced by the expor- ters to back up this allegation.