Action brought on 2 January 2007 - Apache Footwear and Apache II Footwear v Council

(Case T-1/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Apache Footwear Ltd (Guangzhou, China) and Apache II Footwear Ltd (Qingyuan, China) (represented by: O. Prost and S. Ballschmiede, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

Annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006¹, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam as long as it imposes 16.5% duty on imports of products manufactured by the applicant;

ask the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present application, the applicants seek partial annulment, pursuant to Article 230(4) EC, of the contested regulation to the extent that it imposes definitive anti-dumping duties on their imports into the European Union.

The applicants advance three pleas in law in support of their claims:

First, the applicants submit that the Council, when examining whether the applicants met the criteria to be granted Market Economy Treatment ('MET'), pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (hereinafter, 'the Basic Regulation'), violated the latter, as well as its obligation of motivation under Article 253 EC, insofar as it allegedly failed to examine whether the applicants were subject to significant state interference.

Second, the applicants claim that the Council, by refusing to take into account certain additional key information, violated its obligation of due diligence and proper administration, and consequently made a manifest error of appraisal.

Third, the applicants contend that the Council by refusing to exclude children's footwear from the scope of the measures at the stage of the definitive regulation, violated Article 21 of the Basic Regulation, its obligation of motivation under Article 253 EC and made a manifest error of appraisal.

____________

¹ - OJ 2006, L 275, p.1