Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1999:263
Date: 1999-10-20
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber, Extended Composition
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Dumping;External relations;Commercial policy
Concepts: Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Anti-dumping proceed­
ing — Final disclosure document to be addressed to the exporter under investigation — 
Where sent to the exporter's registered office — Constitutes valid notification — 
Where the exporter has requested notification at another address — Irrelevant — 
Whether obligatory to inform the exporter's legal representative — No such obligation 
(Council Regulation No 384/96. Art. 20) 
II - 3241 
SUMMARY — CASE T-171/97 
2. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Injury — Volume of 
imports — Imports made within a single group of undertakings to be taken into 
account 
(Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 3) 
3. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Injury — Factors to be 
taken into consideration — Volume of imports dumped — Impact of imports to be 
assessed as a whole, not on the basis of each individual exporter — Whether in breach 
of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality — No such breach 
(Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 3) 
1. The final disclosure document referred 
to in Article 20 of the basic anti­
dumping regulation, Regulation 
No 384/96, is duly notified to the 
exporter of the product under investi-
gat ion where the Commission 
addresses it to the exporter's registered 
office, even if the undertaking has 
expressly asked to be notified at 
another address. None of the provi­
sions of Article 20 requires the Com­
mission to ensure that the final disclo­
sure document has been communicated 
to the legal representative of the expor­
ter concerned. 
2. The mere fact that an import is made 
within a single group of undertakings is 
not a reason to exclude it from the 
scope of Article 3 of the basic anti­
dumping regulation, Regulation 
No 384/96. 
3. There is no provision in the basic anti­
dumping regulation, Regulation 
No 384/96 — nor indeed in the 1994 
Anti-Dumping Code — which obliges 
the Community institutions to con­
sider, in anti-dumping proceedings, 
whether and, if so, to what extent each 
exporter responsible for dumping indi­
vidually contributes to the injury 
caused to the Community industry. 
That injury must be assessed as a 
whole and there is good reason to 
consider the effect of all such imports 
on the Community industry and to take 
appropriate action against all the 
exporters, even if the volume of each 
individual exporter's exports is rela­
tively small. 
Accordingly, such a trader cannot suc­
cessfully rely on the principle of equal 
treatment because the anti-dumping 
system precludes a trader who has 
exported a limited quantity from being 
considered, for the purposes of deter­
mining injury, as being in a situation 
different to that of a trader who has 
exported substantial quantities. Nor 
may that trader rely on the principle 
of proportionality, since, in order to 
safeguard the Community industry, it 
may be necessary to take even limited 
exports into consideration when deter­
mining the existence of injury. 
II - 3242