# C_2006178EN.01003401.xml

| 29.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/34

---

Action brought on 19 May 2006 — MTZ Polyfilms v Council

(Case T-143/06)

(2006/C 178/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MTZ Polyfilms Ltd. (Mumbai, India) (represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 of 27 February 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 of 27 February 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India;

| — | order the Council to bear the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant produces and exports polyethylene terephthalate film to the European Community.

In support of its application, it first claims that the contested regulation violates Article 2(8) and 2(9) of the basic regulation (1). The applicant contests that the contested regulation constructs the applicant's export price to the Community on the basis of its export prices to third countries, because the actual export prices to the Community are allegedly unreliable due to the existence of minimum import prices.

1

According to the applicant, its export prices are not unreliable in the meaning of Article 2(9) of the basic regulation. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the methodology used is incompatible with the basic regulation which spells out the methodologies that can be used for determining an export price. The applicant submits that Articles 2(8) and 2(9) of the basic regulation apply equally to review investigations, such as the contested proceedings, regardless of whether there were undertakings in place.

Second, the applicant invokes a breach of the agreement on implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (2). According to the applicant, its export price is not unreliable in the meaning of Articles 2.1 and 2.3 of that agreement. In addition, the applicant submits that the methodology used is incompatible with Articles 2.1, 2.3 and 11 of the agreement. The applicant submits finally that Articles 2.1 and 2.3 of the agreement apply equally to reviews carried out pursuant to Article 11 of the agreement, such as the partial interim review at hand.

2

Finally, the applicant invokes a lack of legal basis for the methodology applied to determine the applicant's export price to the Community and a breach of the principle of legal certainty by making it impossible for exporting producers to determine their behaviour in the context of a price undertaking.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 56, 1996, p. 1).

1

(2)  Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (WTO-GATT 1994) - anti-dumping agreement (OJ L 336, 1994, p. 103).

2

---