Notice for the OJ
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Action brought on 11 August 2004 by Viz Stal and Duferco Commerciale SpA against the Council of the European Union
(Case T-335/04)
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 11 August 2004 by Viz Stal, Ekaterinburg (Russia) and Duferco Commerciale SpA, Genova (Italy), represented by R. Luff and J-F. Bellis, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
- annul Council Regulation (EC) No 990/2004 of 17 May 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 151/2003 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain grain oriented electrical sheets originating in Russia insofar as it imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of the products concerned manufactured by Viz Stal and imported into the European Community by Duferco;
- order that the amendment of the rate of duty applicable to Viz Stal in the contested regulation shall remain provisionally in force until the competent institutions have adopted the measures necessary to comply with this judgement;
- order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The contested regulation1 was adopted pursuant to an interim review initiated on the basis of a request lodged by the applicant, Viz Stal, and another request lodged by another Russian producer of the product. The requests were based on the grounds that the producers fulfilled the requirement to be granted market economy status and that their dumping margin had decreased.
In the framework of the interim review, which was limited to the determination of the dumping margin, the normal value and the export price for the applicant were calculated and, as a result, the anti-dumping margin for the applicant, Viz Stal, was determined. According to the applicants, the normal value and export price were unlawfully determined.
In support of their application, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed Articles 2(3) and 2(5) of the Basic Regulation2 in rejecting the prices paid by Viz Stal to its supplier. According to the applicants, the Commission erroneously concluded that Viz Stal and its supplier, Magnitogorsk, were associated parties and that the prices charged were unreliable. In this regard, the applicants also submit a violation of their rights of defence as guaranteed in Article 18(4) of the Basic Regulation and Article 6.2 of the WTO Agreement on Anti-Dumping.
The applicants furthermore submit that the Commission infringed Articles 2(5) and 2(6) of the Basic Regulation, in increasing the financing costs incurred by Viz Stal, as reflected in its accounting records, by applying an interest rate on non-interest bearing loans granted by Vetrade, the holding company of Viz Stal. According to the applicants, no cost has actually been incurred by Viz Stal with respect to those loans, which cannot be compared to loans granted by independent third parties. The applicants also claim that the interest rate used by the Commission was arbitrary.
Finally, the applicants claim that the Commission erred in deducting twice the credit costs from the export price. The applicants submit that the Commission, on the one hand, deducted, pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic regulation, the credit costs as part of the selling, general and administrative costs. On the other hand, the Commission also made, pursuant to Article 2(10) of the basic regulation, an adjustment to the export price for the credit costs related to payment terms granted by Duferco to the first independent buyer.
____________1 - Council Regulation (EC) No 990/2004 of 7 May 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 5/2003 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain grain oriented electrical sheets originating in Russia (OJ L 82, p. 5)2 - Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1)