Action brought on 16 June 2011 - Alumina v Council

(Case T-304/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alumina d.o.o (Zvornik, Bosnia and Herzegovina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and B. Servais, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

annul the anti-dumping duty imposed on the applicant by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 464/2011 of 11 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina;

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First, the applicant considers that the anti-dumping duty fixed in the contested regulation is unlawful since the method used to calculate the constructed normal value is in breach of Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic regulation. In the construction of the normal value, the defendant has used a profit margin of 58.89% calculated on the basis of the applicant's non-representative domestic sales. Use of such a profit margin is incompatible with Article 2 of the basic regulation. The construction of the normal value is affected by a fundamental contradiction since the method used by the defendant to construct the normal value obtains the same result as if the normal value had been based on the prices of the non-representative domestic sales. Such a method is contrary to the settled practice of the Commission and the Council and to the case-law of the General Court and the Court of Justice. Moreover, the chosen profit margin of 58.89% is not 'reasonable'. Lastly, the defendant is wrong to rely on case-law stemming from WTO rulings to apply a profit margin which is not 'reasonable' in the construction of the normal value applicable to the applicant's exports.

Secondly, the applicant also considers that the method used to calculate the constructed normal value is in breach of the provisions of Article 2(6) of the basic regulation in that the applicant's domestic sales were not made in the 'ordinary course of trade' within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 2(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 2(3) of the basic regulation.

____________