Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2021.Roland SE v European Commission.Dumping – Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam – Implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C‑659/13 and C‑34/14 – Reinstitution of a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitive collection of the provisional duty – Resumption of the proceeding which preceded the regulations declared invalid – Market economy treatment (MET) – Individual treatment (IT) – Desk analysis – Absence of a verification visit or a request for additional information – Non-reimbursement of anti-dumping duties – Legal basis – Legal certainty – Legitimate expectations – Non-retroactivity – Proportionality – Non-discrimination – Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 1 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) – Previous decision-making practice – Competence of national authorities and courts.Case T-132/18.

Judgment // 09/06/2021 // 4 min read
bookmark 84 citations

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2021 –Roland v Commission

(Case T‑132/18)

(Dumping – Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam – Implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C‑659/13 and C‑34/14 – Reinstitution of a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitive collection of the provisional duty – Resumption of the proceeding which preceded the regulations declared invalid – Market economy treatment (MET) – Individual treatment (IT) – Desk analysis – Absence of a verification visit or a request for additional information – Non-reimbursement of anti-dumping duties – Legal basis – Legal certainty – Legitimate expectations – Non-retroactivity – Proportionality – Non-discrimination – Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 1 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) – Previous decision-making practice – Competence of national authorities and courts)

  1. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria – Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties – Whether an importer of the product concerned directly affected

(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Regulation 2017/2232)

(see paras 45, 46)

  1. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Individual concern – Criteria – Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties – Action brought by an undertaking identifiable at the time the regulation adopted and forming part of a restricted circle of economic operators – Admissibility

(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Regulation 2017/2232)

(see paras 47-50, 55-57)

  1. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Anti-dumping proceeding – Judgment declaring regulations imposing anti-dumping duties invalid – Adoption of a regulation seeking to implement the declaration of invalidity – Refund of anti-dumping duties imposed by invalidated regulations – Jurisdiction of national authorities and courts

(Council Regulations No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 952/2013, Arts 217 (1) and 221 (1), No 1472/2006, Art. 1(4), and No 1294/2009, Art. 1(5); Commission Regulation 2017/2232, Recitals 43 to 46)

(see paras 63-71, 89, 159)

  1. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Anti-dumping proceeding – Judgment declaring regulations imposing anti-dumping duties invalid – Adoption of a regulation seeking to implement the declaration of invalidity – Adoption of that regulation on the basis of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation 2016/1036 – Whether permissible

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Arts 9 and 14)

(see paras 73-77)

  1. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Anti-dumping proceeding – Judgment declaring regulations imposing anti-dumping duties invalid – Adoption of a regulation seeking to implement the declaration of invalidity – Reimposition of the anti-dumping duties on importations made during the application period of the invalidated regulations – No breach of the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Art. 10(1); Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 10(1))

(see paras 94-106)

  1. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Discretion of the institutions – Change of approach as regards certain importers becoming subject to reinstituted anti-dumping duties – Whether permissible – No possibility for economic operators to invoke the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations

(see paras 107-111, 152)

  1. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Anti-dumping proceeding – Judgment declaring regulations imposing anti-dumping duties invalid – Adoption of a regulation seeking to implement the declaration of invalidity – Discretion of the institutions – Scope – Judicial review – Limits

(Art. 266 TFEU; Commission Regulation 2017/2232)

(see paras 118, 119)

  1. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Scope of the obligation on the Commission to examine for accuracy the information supplied by the interested parties – Information supplied in the context of the grant of market economy treatment – Included – No obligation to carry out a visit to the premises of the undertaking concerned

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Arts 6 (8) and 16 (1); Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 2 (7) (b), 6 (8), 9 (5) and 16 (1))

(see paras 147-149)

  1. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Anti-dumping proceeding – Rights of the defence – Obligation of the institutions to provide information – Application to a company which did not participate in the investigation procedure and is not related to any exporting producer in the country under investigation – Not included

(Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 2(10))

(see para. 156)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232 of 4 December 2017 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C‑659/13 and C‑34/14 (OJ 2017 L 319, p. 30).

Operative part

The Court:

  1. Dismisses the action;

  2. Orders Roland SE to pay the costs.

Dumping , External relations , Commercial policy