Notice for the OJ
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
Action brought on 16 March 2004 by Aluminium Silicon Mill Products GmbH against the Council of the European Union
(Case T-107/04)
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 16 March 2004 by Aluminium Silicon Mill Products, Zug, Switzerland, represented by Mr A. Willems and Mr L. Ruessmann, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
- Annul Council Regulation (EC) No. 2229/2003 to the extent it imposes duties on exports by SKU and ZAO Kremny
- Order the Council the pay the costs
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The contested measure, Council Regulation (EC) No. 2229/20031, imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon originating in Russia and as part of that imposed a 22.7% duty on silicon originating from two related Russian producers, SUAL- Kremny-Ural and ZAO Kremny. The applicant imports silicon metal from these two producers, for sale to customers located in the European Community, and on this basis requests the annulment of the contested measure.
In support of its application the applicant contends that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed Articles 1 paragraph 4 and article 6 paragraph 7 of Regulation 384/19962, since the contested measure ignores the significance of the distinct product characteristics and distinct end uses of chemical and metallurgical silicon metals. The applicant further contends that the Council failed to state reasons in connection with the determination of the export price as well as the finding that between 1998 and 2000 the injury indicators developed positively. According to the applicant the latter finding also infringes Article 3.4 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 3 paragraph 5 of Regulation 384/1996. The applicant also contends that the Council failed to state its reasons for concluding that a causal link between the allegedly dumped imports in question and the injury had been established, committed a manifest error of assessment in relation to this finding and infringed Article 3 paragraphs 2, 6 and 7 of Regulation 384/1996 and Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. The applicant finally submits that the Council violated Article 3 paragraph 3 of Regulation 384/1996 in connexion with the use of underselling as the methodology for calculating injury elimination level, and failed to state adequate reasons for doing so.
____________1 - Official Journal L 339 , 24/2/2003 P. 3 - 3 2 - Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, Official Journal L 056 , 06/03/1996 P. 1 - 0