Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:282
Date: 2003-10-23
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Dumping;External relations;Commercial policy
Concepts: Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures;Principle of equality and non-discrimination
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Provisional data;China

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Dumping margin — 
Determination of normal value — Imports from a non-market economy country such 
as those referred to in Article 2(7)(b) of Regulation No 384/96 — Application of the 
II - 4741 
SUMMARY — CASE T-255/01 
rules relating to a market-economy country — Application reserved to producers 
satisfying the conditions set out in Article 2(7)(b) of Regulation No 384/96 
(Council Regulations Nos 384/96, Art. 2(1) to (7), and 905/98) 
2. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Dumping margin — 
Determination of normal value — Imports from a non-market economy country such 
as those referred to in Article 2(7)(b) of Regulation No 384/96 — General rule 
requiring reference to the price in a market-economy third country — Use of another 
reasonable basis only where it is impossible to apply the general rule 
(Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 2(7)(a)) 
3. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Dumping margin — 
Determination of normal value — Imports from a non-market economy country such 
as those referred to in Article 2(7)(b) of Regulation No 384/96 — Distinction between 
producers according to whether or not they operate in market-economy conditions — 
Principle of equal treatment — Breach — None 
(Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 2(7)(b)) 
1. It follows from the wording and struc­
ture of Article 2(7) of the basic anti­
dumping regulation No 384/96, in 
particular in the light of the recitals in 
the preamble to Regulation No 905/98 
amending that regulation, that deter­
mination of the normal value of prod­
ucts originating in the People's Repub­
lic of China by reference to the rules 
laid down in Article 2(1) to (6) is 
confined to specific individual cases in 
which the producers concerned have 
each of them made a properly sub­
stantiated claim in accordance with the 
criteria and procedures laid down in 
Article 2(7)(c). 
(see para. 40) 
2. The institutions with power to deter­
mine the normal value of products 
subject to anti-dumping measures may 
choose not to apply the general rule set 
out in Article 2(7)(a) of the basic 
anti-dumping regulation No 384/96 
for the determination of the normal 
value of products originating in non-
market economy countries, using a 
different reasonable basis, only where 
it is impossible to apply that general 
rule. Such impossibility arises only 
where the data required in order to 
determine normal value are not avail­
able or not reliable. That it happens to 
be necessary to adjust the data from a 
market-economy country in order to 
adapt them as closely as possible to the 
conditions which would obtain for 
producers in a non-market-economy 
country such as those referred to in 
Article 2(7)(b) if that country were a 
market-economy country does not in 
II - 4742 
CHANGZHOU HAILONG ELECTRONICS & LIGHT FIXTURES AND ZHEJIANG YANKON v COUNCIL 
itself demonstrate that it was either 
impossible or even inappropriate to use 
those data. 
(see para. 59) 
3. For the Community institutions to be 
accused of discrimination, they must be 
shown to have treated like cases dif­
ferently, thereby placing some traders 
at a disadvantage by comparison with 
others, without such differentiation's 
being justified by the existence of 
substantial objective differences. 
The fact that when they come to adopt 
anti-dumping measures in respect of 
goods from non-market-economy 
countries the institutions apply, in 
order to calculate the normal value of 
those goods, the rules laid down in 
Article 2(7)(a) of the basic anti-dump­
ing regulation No 384/96 to undertak­
ings which do not operate in market 
conditions and the rules laid down in 
Article 2(7)(b) to undertakings which 
do operate in those conditions and 
which have submitted substantiated 
claims in that connection cannot there­
fore be regarded as discriminatory 
action, even if the latter undertakings 
are thereby afforded more favourable 
treatment than the former. 
(see paras 60-62) 
II - 4743