Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2019:454
Date: 2019-06-28
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Dumping;External relations;Commercial policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

summary of the information concerning the raw material prices was put in the non-confidential file for consultation by interested parties. 189 In that regard, it should be noted that the applicant does not refer, in its arguments, to specific evidence communicated to the Commission which could have called into question the Commission’s conclusion that the Union industry purchased the raw materials at market prices. 190 It is also apparent from recital 128 of the contested regulation that the observations submitted by the applicant in that regard during the administrative procedure were not accompanied by such evidence, either. 191 It follows that the Commission did not fail to fulfil its obligation of sound administration by not inviting the supplier to complete a questionnaire or to provide additional information. Consequently, the present complaint must be rejected. 192 In any event, infringement of the right of access to the investigation file can result in the annulment of the contested regulation only if there is a chance, albeit slight, that disclosure of the documents in question might cause the administrative procedure to have a different result if the undertaking concerned is able to rely on them during that procedure (judgment of 16 February 2012, Council and Commission v Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe NTRP, C‑191/09 P and C‑200/09 P, EU:C:2012:78, paragraph 174). 193 However, the applicant does not explain how, were it not for the alleged irregularity, the anti-dumping proceeding might have had a different result. 194 It follows that it is necessary to reject the present complaint and, consequently, the present plea in its entirety. Fifth plea, alleging infringement of Article 2(7)(a) and Article 3(2), (3) and (5) of the basic regulation 195 The applicant submits, in essence, that, by relying on data affected by the relationship between the EU producer and its supplier of raw materials, the Commission infringed Article 2(7)(a) and Article 3(2), (3) and (5) of the basic regulation. According to the applicant, the Commission should have requested the supplier to complete a questionnaire, checked the accuracy of its responses and made an in-depth analysis of the prices charged by the supplier. Moreover, in the absence of willingness on the part of the related supplier to cooperate, the Commission should have disregarded the cost data relating to transactions between the related parties. At the very least, the Commission failed to examine the impact of that relationship in an impartial and accurate way. 196 The Commission and the intervener dispute the applicant’s arguments and contend that the plea should be rejected. 197 In the first place, the applicant criticises the Commission for not having analysed, for the purposes of determining the dumping margin and injury margin, the relationship between the EU producer and the supplier of raw materials. More specifically, the applicant submits that the data relating to the costs and prices of the Union industry are distorted by that relationship. 198 According to well-established case-law, determination of injury involves the assessment of complex economic matters. In that respect, the EU institutions enjoy a wide discretion. The EU Courts must therefore restrict their review to verifying whether the procedural rules have been complied with, whether the facts on which the contested choice is based are accurate or whether there has been a manifest error of assessment or a misuse of powers (see judgment of 20 May 2015, Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals v Council, T‑310/12, not published, EU:T:2015:295, paragraphs 127 and 128 and the case-law cited). 199 It is for the applicant to adduce evidence enabling the Court to find that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment when determining injury (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 May 2015, Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals v Council, T‑310/12, not published, EU:T:2015:295, paragraph 129 and the case-law cited). 200 In the present case, it should be noted that the applicant provides no evidence in support of the assertion that the data relating to the costs and prices of the Union industry are distorted by the relationship between the EU producer and the supplier of raw materials. 201 That argument must therefore be rejected. 202 In the second place, the applicant criticises the Commission for not requesting the supplier of raw materials to complete a questionnaire, checking the accuracy of the responses or making an in-depth analysis of the prices it charged. 203 In that regard, as has been recalled in paragraph 187 above, in accordance with Article 6(8) of the basic regulation, the Commission has a degree of discretion in determining the reliability of the information gathered, since examination of the accuracy of the information is to be made ‘as far as possible’ (judgment of 23 September 2015, Hüpeden v Council and Commission, T‑206/14, not published, EU:T:2015:672, paragraph 44). 204 That argument must therefore be rejected. 205 It follows from all the foregoing that the applicant cannot validly plead a failure on the part of the Commission to fulfil its obligation to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case. 206 It follows that the Commission did not commit any infringement of Article 2(7)(a) and Article 3(2), (3) and (5) of the basic regulation. 207 Accordingly, the present plea must be rejected and, consequently, the action must be dismissed in its entirety, without it being necessary to grant the applicant’s requests for measures of organisation of procedure and inquiry. Costs 208 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 209 Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, and since the Commission and the intervener have applied for costs, the applicant must be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd to pay the costs. Prek Schalin Costeira Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 28 June 2019. E. Coulon E. Buttigieg Registrar President * Language of the case: English.