Judgment;Judgment (extracts) — ECLI:EU:T:2018:196
Date: 2018-04-19
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Dumping;External relations;Commercial policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber), 19 April 2018 1. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Circumvention — Determination of circumvention — Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Art. 13(1) and (4)) 2. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Circumvention — Determination of circumvention – Practices constituting circumvention (Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Art. 13(1)) 3. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Circumvention — Determination of circumvention – Need to establish circumvention for each export to the EU by the exporter concerned during the reference period — No such need (Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Art. 13(4)) 1. Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community provides that circumvention of anti-dumping measures is established when four conditions are met. First, there must be a change in the pattern of trade between a third country and the European Union or between individual companies in the country subject to measures and the European Union. Second, that change must stem from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty. Third, there must be evidence of injury to EU industry or that the remedial effects of the anti-dumping duty are being undermined. Fourth, there must be evidence of dumping. Accordingly, under Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009, it is the task of the EU institutions to establish that anti-dumping measures are being circumvented in respect of the third country as a whole that is the subject of the investigation in relation to the circumvention, whereas it is for each individual producer-exporter to show that its particular situation justifies an exemption pursuant to Article 13(4) of the regulation. (see paras 53, 55) 2. The second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community contains a non-exhaustive list of the practices, processes and work referred to in the first subparagraph. These include the consignment of the product subject to measures via third countries and, in the circumstances indicated in paragraph 2, the assembly of parts by an assembly operation in the Union or a third country. It follows that it is sufficient that only one sort of circumvention practice be established in order for the second condition mentioned in Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 to be fulfilled, which does not however prevent the institutions concerned establishing other sorts of circumvention practices where they consider them to be present. (see paras 56, 57) 3. Article 13(4) of Regulation No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community requires the producer concerned to show that it ‘[does not engage] in circumvention practices’. That provision does not lay down any quantitative conditions or qualitative requirements regarding those practices. In particular, the provision does not require that those practices be found in relation to each export to the EU during the reference period. (see para. 86)