Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 8 April 2002 by SFT Gondrand Frères against the Commission of the European Communities.

    (Case T-104/02)

    Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on April 2002 by SFT Gondrand Frères of Paris, represented by Mireille Famchon, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(annul Decision REM 06/01 of 14 January 2002 and allow a rebate of the anti-dumping duties imposed to SFT Gondrand Frères.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an authorised customs agent. In 1997 it released for circulation three cargo loads of urea ammonium nitrate solution from Poland. When making the customs declaration the applicant applied for an exemption from anti-dumping duty which applies to imports of that product from Poland. Following checks, the French customs authorities took the view that anti-dumping duty was due and demanded payment of the customs duty from the applicant.

The applicant then requested a rebate of the anti-dumping duty and the corresponding VAT. That request was sent by the French authorities to the Commission, which refused a rebate of the anti-dumping duties. The applicant is challenging that decision in this case.

The applicant claims that anti-dumping duties are not payable, as a result of EC Regulation No 3319/94. ¹ The applicant states that the goods were invoiced directly by the Polish company, Zaklady Azotowe Pulawy, to a French company, Evertrade. The price of the goods was, furthermore, higher than the minimum import price. In those circumstances the applicant claims that to subject the contested imports to anti-dumping duties is unjustified.

The applicant also claims that it was justifiable for the duties to be subject to a rebate in this case in the light of one particular factor. According to the applicant, the idea is to prevent dumping by means of import routes involving intermediate companies in third countries. That danger has been averted here, since the first buyer from the Polish exporter was a French company. Furthermore, the regulation in question poses difficulties of interpretation. The applicant claims that the French authorities interpreted it in the same way as the applicant. It also adds that its omission is a purely formal one and has not had any real effect on the proper functioning of the customs system.

Finally, the applicant argues that it cannot be accused of deception and that it has not acted with manifest negligence.

____________

¹ - Council Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 of 22 December 1994 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of urea ammonium nitrate solution originating in Bulgaria and Poland, exported by companies not exempted from the duty, and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ 1994 L 350, p. 20).