4. 8. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 213/5 COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2347/87 of 23 July 1987 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on mechanical wrist-watches origina- ting in the USSR THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84 of 23 July 1984 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 within the Advisory Committee as provided for under the above Regulation, @ C) ) () ) ( 4 Whereas : A. Procedure By Regulation (EEC) No 1882/82 (%) the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on mecha- nical wrist-watches originating in the USSR. Following the imposition of these measures the complainant, Timex Corporation, Dundee, lodged an application with the Court of Justice of the European Communities pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 173 of the Treaty for partial annulment of Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1882/82. The Court, in its judgment in Case 264/82 (%), declared the Article in question to be void and ordered the anti-dumping duty imposed by that provision to be maintained until the competent institutions adopt the measures needed to comply with its judgment. - In compliance with this judgment, the Commis- sion, as the competent institution, considered, toge- ther with Timex, the most appropriate procedure to be undertaken. In view of the time which had elapsed since the original investigation and the change in circumstances which had occurred parti- cularly regarding the producers of mechanical wrist-watches in the chosen analogous market, Hong Kong, it was considered that the proceeding should be reopened and an investigation commenced at Community level. Accordingly, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communi- ties (), the initiation of an anti-dumping procee- ding concerning imports into the Community of certain mechanical wrist-watches falling within heading No ex 91.01 of the Common Customs () OJ No L 201, 30. 7. 1984, p. 1. OJ No L 207, 15. 7. 1982, p. 1. (®) Not yet published in the Official Journal. ) OJ No C 248, 7. 11. 1985, p. 3. “) 6 ®) Tariff corresponding to NIMEXE codes ex 91.01-37 and 57 and originating in the USSR. The Commission officially advised both the expor- ters and the importers known to be concerned and the Community producers, and gave the parties directly concerned the opportunity to make known their views in writing and to request a hearing. The principal Community producer, Timex, which accounts for a major proportion of Community output of the product in question, made its views known both in writing and orally and requested and received the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recom- mend definitive action. The USSR exporter did not cooperate in the investigation. In order to verify the export prices to the Commu- nity of the product in question and the extent of injury caused to the Community industry, the Commission carried out an inspection at the premises of the principal importer concerned, Global Watches Ltd, and of the principal Commu- nity producer, Timex Corporation. The investigation of dumping covered the period from January to October 1985 inclusive. B. Normal value In order to establish whether products originating in the USSR were being imported at dumped prices, the Commission had to take into account the fact that the USSR does not operate a market economy. In such circumstances the normal value for the product in question must ordinarily be determined on the basis of the prices charged for, or the constructed value of, the like product in a market economy third country. In the original investigation the analogous market chosen by the Commission was Hong Kong. However, in both the previous and present procee- dings, Timex contended that the prices of Swiss mechanical wrist-watches would be the most appropriate basis for establishing normal value. Timex’s current contention was based mainly on the assertions that the use of any data regarding watches produced in Hong Kong would raise problems of reliability and that the type of manu- facturing operation of the Swiss producers would - provide the basis of a fairer comparison than those of Hong Kong.