Notice for the OJ
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Action brought on 15 December 2003 by Shandong Reipu Biochemicals Co. Ltd. against the Council of the European Union
(Case T-413/03)
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 15 December 2003 by Shandong Reipu Biochemicals Co. Ltd., Shandong, (People's Republic of China), represented by O. Prost, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
- annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1656/2003 of 11 September 2003 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of para-cresol originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2003 L 234, p. 1) as long as it imposes a 12,3% duty on imports of products manufactured by the applicant;
- ask the Council to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The applicant is established in the People's Republic of China and produces and exports para-cresol to the European Union. The applicant contests Regulation (EC) No. 1656/2003 which imposes a definitive duty on imports of para-cresol, originating in the People's Republic of China.
The applicant submits that the Council failed to determine the normal value in an appropriate and not unreasonable manner within the meaning of Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No. 384/961, as modified, and in conformity with its duty of due care. The Commission, who initiated an anti-dumping procedure under Article 5 of the Regulation, should not have ignored the anti-dumping rule according to which costs of by-products should not be taken into account, but instead should be deducted, in the normal value determination, in order to meet the need for a normal value determined in an appropriate and not unreasonable manner. According to the applicant, the Commission was aware of the difference between the costs of production related to the production of para-cresol, on the one hand, and the costs of production related specifically to the by-products (sodium sulfite and mixed phenol), on the other hand. By extending the scope of the investigation to the two by-products and by taking into account the by-products in the normal value determination, the Commission violated the duty of due diligence.
Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Council failed to respect the duty of good administration and that it violated Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No. 348/96 by failing to calculate a normal value for the like product only.
____________1 - Council Regulation (EC) No. 384/96 of 22.2.995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 56 of 6.3.996, p. ).