Action brought on 6 December 2010 - Novatex v Council

(Case T-556/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novatex Ltd, Karachi, Pakistan, (represented by: B. Servais, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 857/2010 of 27 September 2010 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates¹ ;

order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council violated Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009² by erroneously concluding that the Final Tax Regime (FTR) is a scheme which forgoes government revenue and, consequently, constitutes a financial contribution and that the FTR invariably confers benefit to the applicant. The applicant submits that:

the Final Tax Regime cannot be considered to constitute a financial contribution on the basis of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009, interpreted in accordance with the relevant provision of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and the interpretation given thereto by the WTO case law.

the contested regulation violates Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009, interpreted in accordance with the relevant provision of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures by concluding that the Final Tax Regime confers a benefit on the applicant.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council violated:

Articles 3(2) and 6(b) of the Council Regulation No 597/2009 interpreted in accordance with the relevant provision of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures by using the applicable commercial rate prevailing during the investigation period, as found on the State Bank of Pakistan website, rather that the commercial rate prevailing at the time the loan was contracted by the applicant ;

Article 7(2) of the Council Regulation No 597/2009 interpreted in accordance with the relevant provision of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures by applying an inappropriate denominator, that is, the export turnover, while the appropriate denominator was the turnover.

____________

¹ - OJ 2010 L 254, p. 10

² - Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community, OJ 2009 L 188, p. 93