# C_2010179EN.01004402.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/44

---

Action brought on 20 April 2010 — Greenwood Houseware (Zhuhai) and others v Council

(Case T-191/10)

(2010/C 179/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Greenwood Houseware (Zhuhai) Ltd (Zhuhai City, China), Brabantia S&S Ltd (Hong Kong, China), Brabantia S&L Belgium NV (Overpelt, Belgium), Brabantia Belgium NV (Overpelt, Belgium), Brabantia Netherlands BV (Valkenswaard, Netherlands) and Brabantia (U.K.) Ltd (Bristol, United Kingdom), (represented by: E. Vermulst and Y. van Gerven, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 77/2010 of 19 January 2010 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 77/2010 of 19 January 2010 (1);

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings; and

| — | Order the interveners, if any, to pay their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the interveners, if any, to pay their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 77/2010 of 19 January 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in the People’s Republic of China.

In support of its submissions, the applicants put forward the following pleas in law:

| | Firstly, by issuing the additional disclosure after the publication of the contested regulation, the Council violated Article 20(4) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) and the rights of defence of the applicants. The institutions of the European Union failed to inform the applicants before the contested regulation was finalized and sent to the Council for adoption, about the new facts and considerations underlying the change in the anti-dumping duty and did not provide the applicants any opportunity to present new arguments or to clarify the previously provided information which could have led to a further reduction of the anti-dumping duty. |
| --- | --- |

Firstly, by issuing the additional disclosure after the publication of the contested regulation, the Council violated Article 20(4) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) and the rights of defence of the applicants. The institutions of the European Union failed to inform the applicants before the contested regulation was finalized and sent to the Council for adoption, about the new facts and considerations underlying the change in the anti-dumping duty and did not provide the applicants any opportunity to present new arguments or to clarify the previously provided information which could have led to a further reduction of the anti-dumping duty.

| | Secondly, the Council made a manifest error of appraisal and violated Articles 2(9) and 11(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 while constructing the export price. The Union institutions erroneously deducted the 38,1 % anti-dumping duty in the process of construction of the export price because the requirement of Article 11(10) of the said regulation is not to be proved in case of a new exporter. Moreover, the Union institutions’ assessment of the deduction of the anti-dumping duty was based on an erroneous appreciation of the facts. |
| --- | --- |

Secondly, the Council made a manifest error of appraisal and violated Articles 2(9) and 11(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 while constructing the export price. The Union institutions erroneously deducted the 38,1 % anti-dumping duty in the process of construction of the export price because the requirement of Article 11(10) of the said regulation is not to be proved in case of a new exporter. Moreover, the Union institutions’ assessment of the deduction of the anti-dumping duty was based on an erroneous appreciation of the facts.

| | Thirdly, the Council committed a manifest error of appraisal, breached the principles of diligence and sound administration and non-discrimination, and erred in the application of Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 by making incorrect adjustments to the export price and normal value. The Union institutions erroneously deducted from the export price direct costs not paid by the applicants in relation to a portion of the exports of the product concerned, and wrongly increased the normal value to account for the non-refundable VAT on export sales, even though no such adjustment was made in the original investigation. |
| --- | --- |

Thirdly, the Council committed a manifest error of appraisal, breached the principles of diligence and sound administration and non-discrimination, and erred in the application of Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 by making incorrect adjustments to the export price and normal value. The Union institutions erroneously deducted from the export price direct costs not paid by the applicants in relation to a portion of the exports of the product concerned, and wrongly increased the normal value to account for the non-refundable VAT on export sales, even though no such adjustment was made in the original investigation.

| | Finally, the Union institutions committed a manifest error of appraisal, breached the principles of diligence and sound administration, and non-discrimination, and erred in the application of Articles 2(7)(b), 2(7)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, by denying market economy treatment to Greenwood Houseware (Zhuhai) Ltd. The Union institutions’ refusal of market economy treatment to the applicant Greenwood Houseware (Zhuhai) Ltd. was based on an erroneous appraisal of facts and evidence submitted. Furthermore, there was an absence of diligence and due care on the part of the Union institutions in the assessment of all the relevant aspects concerning the application of criteria 2 and 3 of Article 2(7)(c) of the said regulation. |
| --- | --- |

Finally, the Union institutions committed a manifest error of appraisal, breached the principles of diligence and sound administration, and non-discrimination, and erred in the application of Articles 2(7)(b), 2(7)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, by denying market economy treatment to Greenwood Houseware (Zhuhai) Ltd. The Union institutions’ refusal of market economy treatment to the applicant Greenwood Houseware (Zhuhai) Ltd. was based on an erroneous appraisal of facts and evidence submitted. Furthermore, there was an absence of diligence and due care on the part of the Union institutions in the assessment of all the relevant aspects concerning the application of criteria 2 and 3 of Article 2(7)(c) of the said regulation.

---

(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 77/2010 of 19 January 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 24, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 343, p. 51).

---