D.
<Strong>CONCLUSION ON THE PRODUCT SCOPE</Strong>
(27)
The above findings show that mini-compressors and other compressors subject to the measure concerned do not share the same basic physical and technical characteristics and end-uses. They have different end-uses, target different markets and are in principle not interchangeable. In addition, mini-compressors were not investigated in the framework of the original investigation. On this basis, it is concluded that mini-compressors and other compressors are two different products.
(28)
Almost all parties that came forward in the present reopened investigation requested that mini-compressors should be excluded from the product scope of the original measure.
(29)
On the other hand, the cooperating EU producer of mini-compressors argued that the original measure encompassed its products and that it rightfully protected its interests. Consequently, it claimed that anti-dumping duty should be collected on mini-compressors retroactively and in the future, as the injurious dumping of mini-compressors continues to take place.
(30)
In this regard, it is noted that neither this producer nor any other producer of mini-compressors cooperated in the original investigation. Further, as concluded above in recital 26, mini-compressors were not investigated at the time of the original investigation. It is also noted that as established by the present reopened investigation significant differences exist between mini-compressors and compressors investigated in the original investigation. Consequently, the position of the said EU producer of mini-compressors cannot alter the findings in the present reopened investigation.
(31)
With regard to the claim about continued injurious dumping of mini-compressors and possible imposition of anti-dumping measures, it should be noted that, as explained in recitals 23 to 26 above, mini-compressors were not investigated in the original investigation and that a determination whether injurious dumping took or is taking place cannot be addressed by the present reopened investigation, which is limited to the clarification of the product scope of the original measure.
(32)
Following disclosure, the EU producer of mini-compressors repeated his position and suggested that the retroactive exclusion of mini-compressors from the measures would result in retroactive fortification of their competitors in the PRC and would distort the competition.
(33)
In this regard, it is reiterated that the reopened investigation did not analyse the market situation for mini-compressors and did not envisage doing so. It simply aimed at clarifying if mini-compressors are different from the compressors investigated in the original investigation. The outcome is also not supposed to distort any market situation but to provide clarity with regard to applicable duties.
(34)
Following disclosure, one cooperating importer was suggesting that mini-compressors are in fact only pumps and any duty on compressors is per definition not applicable to pumps that were explicitly excluded from the product scope of the original measure.
(35)
In this respect, it should be noted that the present reopened investigation does not support such an interpretation and that mini-compressors are clearly — from a technical point of view — compressors as they move the air from one place to another (as pumps do) but also compress the air in the object that they are connected to.
(36)
Given the above, it is concluded that mini-compressors (i.e. compressors without a tank and capable of operating on a 12 V power supply) are distinct from compressors investigated in the original investigation.
(37)
Since mini-compressors did not fall within the scope of the original investigation the anti-dumping duty should not have been applied to imports of mini-compressors. Consequently, the scope of application of the measure concerned should be clarified retroactively by an amendment to the definitive Regulation.