Distinct markets. 152. Japan argued that Japanese imports supplied the higher-quality segments of the market, whereas Korean imports supplied the lower end of the market. There were substantial differences in prices between the segments of the market. Japan argued that if products from one country were distinguishable from other exports, then cumulation was never justified. Japan argued that Japanese exports were mainly of the "metal" and "chrome" type and competed with the domestic products on a non-price basis, whilst Korean imports were mainly of the "normal" type and competed on price. Japan argued therefore that there were clear and distinct markets for the goods. Japan noted that the EC had found that the Japanese goods competed on non-price elements, such as brand name, marketing features and styling. Therefore, the EC's application of cumulation in this case denied exporters the opportunity of invoking Article 3:4 in order to distinguish themselves from other exporters.
