The co-operating Community producers represented, during the IP, 44% of total orders of commercial vessels for all Community shipyards, thus representing the Community industry within the meaning of Article 2(5) of the TBR. The eight shipyards which have been visited by Commission officials represented 25% of total orders for all Community shipyards. No shipyard has opposed to the proceeding.

　

CESA claimed that, during the investigation period ('IP'), i.e. from January 1997 to November 2000, the Community industry suffered - and threatened to suffer further -both injury (in the Community market) and adverse trade effects (in third country markets) within the meaning of Article 2(3) and Article 2(4) of the TBR, respectively.

　

CESA alleged that the injury and the adverse trade effects suffered by the Community industry were caused by subsidies given to Korean shipbuilding companies by the Republic of Korea in violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the ASCM. Pursuant to Article 5 of the ASCM, subsidies are actionable if they cause "adverse effects" to the interests of other Members of the ASCM. Such adverse effects can, inter alia, take the form of "injury" under Article 5(a) of the ASCM or "serious prejudice" under Article 5(c) of the ASCM to the Community industry.

　

In accordance with footnote 11 of the ASCM; the tem "injury" is used in the same sense as for countervailing investigation proceedings requiring an analysis of the domestic EU market under Article 15 of the ASCM; on the other hand a "serious prejudice" analysis is to be made under Article 6 of the ASCM with respect to any market.

　

However, as CESA alleged in the complaint and the investigation confirmed, it was shown that the market for commercial vessels is a world market. Indeed, all shipyards compete for the same clients throughout the world so that the notions of domestic and export markets or of imports is virtually meaningless. Furthermore, market data do not distinguish among geographical markets in the absence of "imports" of vessels into a particular market. An effort to define a separate "Community" market would, therefore, be neither realistic nor possible. This approach is further confirmed in the Commission Reports to the Council on shipbuilding where no attempt is made to isolate a Community market; rather the market is defined by orders and deliveries on a global basis⁵⁷.

Information on the shipbuilding market in general as well as information on the situation of Community shipbuilders is contained in the abovementioned Commission reports to the Council. Such information is not repeated in this report for obvious space constraints. References are made to the reports where they are relevant.

　

Korean producers did not produce cruise ships during the IP. Therefore, with regard to this type of vessel a threat of injury and serious prejudice analysis was made. See C.3.8 below.

　

With respect to injury, Article 15 requires that a number of factors are examined All of these factors were addressed during the investigation; however, due to the characteristics of the product concerned, only certain factors amongst the ones listed in Article 15 have been considered as being meaningful indicators for the injury assessment these included effects on market shares, sales volumes, production, capacity utilisation, profits, sales prices, employment and investment.

　

As mentioned above, the market for commercial vessels is a world market, consequently no distinction was made between the Community market and third country markets. Moreover, in order to establish the market shares during the IP, data on world wide new orders have proved to be the most appropriate way to reflect the actual situation on the market.

　

As shown above, the overall Korean market share in new orders increased by 9.2 percentage points during the IP. The decrease of around 3 percentage points between 1997 and 1998 appears to be mainly due to the non-availability of ship financing in the wake of the currency crisis. Community shipyards profited from the Korean situation in 1998, but lost 6.9 percentage points in market share between 1998 and the period from January to November 2000 and this despite the fact that more orders were placed towards the end of the validity of the Community operating aid scheme. ⁵⁹

　

The analysis of this overall picture by type of vessel gives the following result:

　

　

　

A loss in market shares of Community producers and a coinciding increase in Korean market shares was observed in the segments of product and chemical tankers and container ships. In addition, the market share of Community producers has dropped to zero for oil tankers and bulk carriers. They were able to defend their share in the Passenger and RoRo ferries sector and in the other non-cargo vessels sector and they increased their share in other cargo vessels and liquefied gas carriers.

　

　

It has to be borne in mind that the production relates to the work in progress whereas the sales are established on the basis of the contract dates.

　

While the capacity remained almost unchanged during the IP, production decreased by 12%. Consequently, capacity utilisation declined to the same extent.