Action brought on 14 June 2010 - LIS v Commission
(Case T-269/10)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: LIS GmbH Licht Impex Service (Mettmann, Germany) (represented by: K.-P. Langenkamp, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
declare the Commission decision of 12 April 2010 to be void pursuant to Article 264 TFEU;
order the Commission to pay the costs necessarily incurred pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant challenges Commission Decision C (2010) 2198 final of 12 April 2010 by which the Commission rejected the applicant's requests for reimbursement of anti-dumping duties paid in respect of the importation of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps originating in the People's Republic of China.
In support of its claim, the applicant submits that, in applying Article 11(8) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96,
1 the Commission failed to have regard for the purpose and objective of that rule and did not apply principles of logical reasoning.
In this regard, it is submitted, inter alia, that there was never any case of dumping in the specific case, as the production price was below the export price paid and the same product was subsequently offered by a German company at a price which was lower than the original Chinese export price.
The applicant submits, further, that the Commission disregarded the fact that the products in issue are not ordinary energy-saving light bulbs within the meaning of the measure.
The applicant also contends that the classification of the product by the German customs authorities was not, contrary to the Commission's view, open to criticism, as there is no other classification number under which the product could have been entered.
Moreover, the Commission paid no regard to the fact that there was at no time any danger of damage within the Community in the specific case, as the light products marketed by the applicant were marketed throughout Europe by the applicant alone and there was, for that reason, no other manufacturer in need of protection.
In conclusion, it is submitted that it cannot be relevant, for purposes of entitlement to reimbursement, that the specific dumping margin has not disappeared; rather, what is decisive is that there never was any such dumping margin.
____________1 - Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).