Action brought on 15 March 2011 - Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. v Council

(Case T-156/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Guangzhou, People's Republic of China) (represented by: V. Akriditis and Y. Melin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1243/2010 of 20 December 2010 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating in the People's Republic of China produced by Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.; ¹

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of the application.

1.    First plea in law: an initial investigation opened under Article 5 of the Basic Regulation ² cannot be directed against one company in particular but must concern one or more countries and all the producers in those countries. The applicant submits in this respect that:

the contested regulation is contrary to Article 5 of the Basic Regulation, in particular Article 5(9), read in conjunction with Article 17 of that regulation and interpreted consistently with the law of the WTO, in that that article does not allow a new anti-dumping procedure to be opened against a single company;

the contested regulation infringes Article 9(4) to (6) of the Basic Regulation, read consistently with the law of the WTO, in that that article does not allow anti-dumping duties to be imposed on a single company but requires duties to be imposed on all the companies in one or more countries;

the contested regulation infringes Article 9(3) of the Basic Regulation, under which the zero duty of a company covered by an anti-dumping procedure may be reconsidered only in accordance with a reinvestigation initiated under Article 11(3) of the Basic Regulation; in the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission carried out a de facto reconsideration of its zero duty, in breach of Article 9(3) of the Basic Regulation, interpreted in accordance with a report of the WTO appellate body.

2.    Second plea in law: infringement of Article 3, in particular Article 3(2), (3) and (5), of the Basic Regulation, in that the anti-dumping duties were imposed without it being established that the industry of the European Union had suffered injury during the investigation period.

3.    Third plea in law: infringement of European Union law in that it was decided not to grant the applicant the status of a company operating in a market economy. The applicant submits in this respect that:

the decision not to grant it the status of a company operating in a market economy was taken in accordance with what the European Commission knew of the effect of such a refusal on the applicant's dumping margin, in breach of the last subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the Basic Regulation, as interpreted in the case-law of the General Court;

the burden of proof imposed on the applicant by the Commission for it to show that it operates in a market economy is excessive and breaches the general principles of European Union law, in particular the principle of good administration.

____________

¹ - OJ 2010 L 338, p. 22.

² - Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).