Notice for the OJ
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
Action brought on 14 November 2003 by Hynix Semiconductor Inc. against the Council of the European Union
(Case T-383/03)
Language of the case: English
An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 November 2003 by Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Kyoungi-Do, Korea represented by Marco Bronckers, Yves Van Gerven, Axel Gutermuth and Axel Desmedt lawyers with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
declare the Definitive Regulation annulled in its entirety, or at least partially, in so far as it concerns imports into the European Community of products manufactured by Hynix Semiconductor Inc.;
order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The applicant seeks the annulment of Council Regulation 1480/2003 of 11 August 2003 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain electronic microcircuits known as DRAMs (dynamic random access memories) originating in the Republic of Korea1.
With its first two pleas, the applicant contests the finding that it failed to cooperate. According to the applicant, the defendant disregarded the Arthur Andersen report determining the applicant's liquidation value and the affidavit submitted by Citibank. The applicant invokes in that regard a violation of Article 28 of Council Regulation 2026/972, Articles 12 and 22 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, the principle of proportionality and a manifest error of assessment.
The applicant furthermore submits that the findings of the defendant that several specific measures conferred a benefit on the applicant infringe Article 2 of Regulation 2026/97, Article 1 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and amount to a manifest error of assessment of the relevant facts.
The applicant also claims that the findings that the KDB debenture programme3 was specific to the applicant infringe Article 3 of Regulation 2026/97, Articles 1.2 and 2 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and amount to a manifest error of assessment of the relevant facts.
The applicant continues by submitting that in calculating the amount of the benefit of several specific measures, the defendant infringed Articles 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation 2026/97, the Guidelines on the calculation of the amount of the subsidy in countervailing duty proceedings, Articles 14, 22 and annex I(j) of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. In this respect, the applicant also claims that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed Article 253 EC.
The applicant also contests the defendant's findings that subsidised imports from the Republic of Korea caused material injury to the Community's industry of DRAM producers. According to the applicant, these findings infringe Articles 1, 8, 11 and 15 of Regulation 2026/97, Articles 15, 19 and 22 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and amount to manifest errors of assessment. The applicant also claims that the defendant committed a violation of Article 253 EC in this regard.
Finally, the applicant submits that in calculating the countervailing duty, the defendant infringed Articles 5 and 7 of Regulation 2026/97, the Guidelines on the calculation of the amount of the subsidy in countervailing duty proceedings, Articles 14 and 19 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and committed a manifest error of assessment.
____________1 - OJ L 22 of 22 August 2003, p. 2 - Council Regulation (EC) No 06/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 88, p. 1) 3 - See recital 48 and following of the contested decision