Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 26 July 2005 S Shanghai Excell M&E Enterprise and Shanghai Adeptech Precision / Council

(Case T-299/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Shanghai Excell M&E Enterprise Co Ltd and Shanghai Adeptech Precision Company Limited (Shanghai, China) [represented by: R. MacLean, solicitor]

Defendant(s): Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

annul Council Regulation (EC) 692/2005¹ of 28th April 2005, insofar as it applies to the applicant; and

order the Council to pay the legal costs and expenses of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested regulation imposed an anti-dumping duty on the applicants' exports of retail electronic weighing scales which also applied retrospectively to imports of these products registered in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) 1408/2004². Customs authorities in the EU were also instructed to cease the registration of imports of products coming from the People's Republic of China for the applicants.

The applicants request the Court to annul this regulation. In support of their application they invoke an infringement of Article 2.7(c) para. (2) of Council Regulation (EC) 384/1996 on the grounds that the Commission rendered a determination on the issue of Market Economy Treatment for the applicants after the expiry of the three month period provided for in this article. They further invoke manifest errors of assessment relating to the determination of whether the applicants operated under market economy conditions. The applicants consider these alleged errors as violations of Article 2.A.7.(c) para. (1) of Regulation (EC) 384/1996.

The contested regulation was adopted after a "newcomer investigation" in respect of the applicants. The applicants allege that in that investigation the Community institutions did not adopt the same methodology they had applied in the original investigation which led to the duty and that, therefore, Article 11 paragraph 9 of Regulation (EC) 384/1996 was also violated.

The applicants also contend that the Community institutions failed to apply the proper standards in assessing the criteria relating to normal value, export price and profit margin and that therefore Articles 2.A.7. para(A) and 2.C. para(10) of Regulation (EC) 384/1996 were violated.

Finally, the applicants contend that the contested regulation does not identify them properly in that it states incorrect addresses for both of them. They consider that a material error of fact.

____________

¹ - OJ L 112, 3/5/2005, p. 42

² - OJ L 256, 03/08/2004, p. 8