# C_2011030EN.01005402.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/54

---

Action brought on 3 December 2010 — JBF RAK v Council

(Case T-555/10)

()

2011/C 30/96

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: JBF RAK LLC, Al Jazeerah Al Hamra, Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates (represented by: B. Servais, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 857/2010 of 27 September 2010 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 857/2010 of 27 September 2010 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (1);

1

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

—

order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council violated Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (2) insofar as it disregarded the fact that imports of raw materials consigned from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia were not subject to import duties and, thus, erred in calculating the subsidy margin. The applicant submits that, in the present case, the Council failed:






  — | to correctly establish the amount of countervailable subsidy since it did not take into consideration the existence of a customs union between the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council violated Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (2) insofar as it disregarded the fact that imports of raw materials consigned from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia were not subject to import duties and, thus, erred in calculating the subsidy margin. The applicant submits that, in the present case, the Council failed:

2

—

to correctly establish the amount of countervailable subsidy since it did not take into consideration the existence of a customs union between the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members;

| — | to take into consideration the impact of such customs union on the amount of countervailable subsidies. |
| --- | --- |

—

to take into consideration the impact of such customs union on the amount of countervailable subsidies.

Accordingly, the applicant submits that the countervailing duty exceeds the amount of countervailable subsidy established in the investigation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council violated Article 30(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 insofar as it refused to take into account the representations timely made by the applicant on 5 August 2010. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council violated Article 30(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 insofar as it refused to take into account the representations timely made by the applicant on 5 August 2010.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council violated Article 11(8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 insofar as it failed to examine the accuracy of the information presented by the applicant on 5 August 2010. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council violated Article 11(8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 insofar as it failed to examine the accuracy of the information presented by the applicant on 5 August 2010.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the principle of sound administration insofar as it adopted the contested regulation without taking into consideration all the information that was available to it. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the principle of sound administration insofar as it adopted the contested regulation without taking into consideration all the information that was available to it.

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 254, p. 10

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community, OJ 2009 L 188, p. 93

2

---