Order — ECLI:EU:T:2002:1
Date: 2002-01-10
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber, Extended Composition
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Dumping;External relations;Commercial policy
Concepts: Costs
Procedure: Application as to costs
Origin: France

summary of the results of the Commission's investigation, so that that regulation 
thus 'identifies' the applicant (judgment in Shanghai Bicycle, cited in paragraph 
59 above, paragraph 39). 
1 It follows from the foregoing that the present application is admissible. 
Substance 
72 The applicant relies on two pleas in law in support of its action, alleging, first, 
infringement of Article 13(2) of the basic regulation and, second, breach of the 
obligation to state reasons. It is appropriate to examine the first plea first. 
General introduction to the plea 
73 The applicant submits that the Council infringed Article 13(2) of the basic 
regulation in so far as, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the regulation extending the 
duty, it extended the anti-dumping duty imposed by the initial regulation on 
imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of 
essential bicycle parts originating in that country effected by the applicant, 
although the conditions laid down by Article 13(2) of the basic regulation were 
not satisfied. The applicant maintains that the Council was incorrect to consider, 
as the first subparagraph of Article 2(2) of the regulation extending the duty 
(hereinafter 'the contested provision') makes clear, that the applicant had not 
adduced proof that the bicycle parts imported during the period of investigation 
from the People's Republic of China originated in another country. 
II- 3125 
JUDGMENT OF 26. 9. 2000 — CASE T-80/97 
The interpretation of Article 13(2) of the basic regulation as regards the subject-
matter and the burden of proof 
Arguments of the parties 
74 In its application, the applicant contends that the condition set out in 
Article 13(2)(a) and (b) of the basic regulation which an assembly operation 
must fulfil in order to be considered to circumvent the measures in force is only 
satisfied where the parts constituting 6 0 % or more of the total value of the parts 
of the assembled product originated in the country concerned. In its reply, on the 
other hand, it states that that condition is not satisfied where it is established that 
those documents originated in another country. It claims that the Community 
institutions have never adduced proof that the value of the parts originating in the 
People's Republic of China used by the applicant in its assembly operations 
represented 6 0 % or more of the total value of the parts of the assembled product. 
75 The Council, supported by the Commission, observes that it follows from the 
wording of Article 13(2) of the basic regulation that an assembly operation is 
considered to circumvent the measures in force where the parts constituting 60% 
or more of the total value of the parts of the assembled product come from the 
countries to which those measures apply. Accordingly, the Community institu­
tions are not, in principle, obliged to examine whether, still less to prove that, the 
parts coming from the countries to which the measures apply also originate in 
those countries. 
76 The Council contends that the applicant cannot validly challenge the legality of 
the contested provision, since it is common ground that its imports of bicycle 
parts constituting 60% or more of the total value of the parts of the assembled 
product came from the People's Republic of China. 
II - 3126 
STARWAY V COUNCIL 
7 7 However, the Council and the Commission acknowledge, in that regard, that 
Article 13(2) of the basic regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the 
Community institutions are permitted to consider that an assembly operation 
does not constitute a circumvention where it is proved that the parts concerned 
are merely transshipped via the country to which the measures apply without 
undergoing any processing there. Such an interpretation is consistent with the 
principle inherent in Article 1(3) of the basic regulation, namely that imports 
coming from a country to which anti-dumping measures apply cannot be 
subjected to those measures where the products concerned are merely trans­
shipped via that country. However, the Council and the Commission observe that 
in the present case the bicycle parts concerned were not merely transshipped via 
the People's Republic of China, but were sorted there, and any missing items 
replaced, before being consigned to France. 
Findings of the Court 
78 Under Article 13(1) of the basic regulation, anti-dumping duties imposed 
pursuant to that regulation may be extended to imports from third countries of 
like products, or parts thereof, when circumvention of the measures in force is 
taking place. Article 13(2) of that regulation provides that an assembly 
operation, such as that carried out by the applicant in the present case, is to be 
considered to circumvent the measures in force where the conditions set out in 
subparagraphs (a) to (c) are satisfied (see paragraph 1 above). 
79 More particularly, it follows from Article 13(2)(a) and (b) of the basic regulation 
that an assembly operation is to be deemed to constitute circumvention where 
parts having a value of 60% or more of the total value of the parts of the 
assembled product 'are from the country subject to measures'. 
80 Examination of the various language versions of that provision shows that the 
German and Italian versions provide that an assembly operation is to be 
II-3127 
JUDGMENT OF 26. 9. 2000 — CASE T-80/97 
considered to circumvent the measures in force where the parts concerned 
originate in the country subject to measures ('die verwendeten Teile ihren 
Ursprung in dem Land haben, für das Maßnahmen gelten'; 'pezzi utilizzati sono 
originari del paese soggetto alla misura'). According to the Spanish ('procedan del 
pais'), Danish ('fra del land'), Greek ('προέρχονται από τη χώρα'), English ('are 
from the country'), French ('proviennent du pays'), Dutch ('afkomstig... uit het 
land'), Portuguese ('provientes do países'), Finnish ('tulevat maasta') and Swedish 
('från det land') versions, however, it is sufficient that the parts come from that 
country. 
81 It follows from the case-law of the Court of Justice that the need for a uniform 
interpretation of Community regulations means that a particular provision 
should not be considered in isolation but in cases of doubt should be interpreted 
and applied in the light of the other official languages. Moreover, in the case of 
divergence between language versions, the provision in question must be 
interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which 
it forms part (judgment in Case C-372/88 Milk Marketing Board of England and 
Wales v Cricket St Thomas [1990] ECR I-1345, paragraph 19). 
82 In that regard, it should be observed that there is no divergence between language 
versions in the case of Article 13(1) of the basic regulation, which provides that 
measures in force may be extended to imports 'from' third countries of like 
products, or parts thereof. Article 13(2) of the basic regulation constitutes a 
specific provision by comparison with Article 13(1). There is nothing in the basic 
regulation to support the presumption that the Community legislature intended, 
as regards assembly operations, that Article 13 should apply only to parts 
originating in the country subject to the measures when it clearly envisaged a 
wider scope for other possible methods of circumvention. To the contrary, it 
follows from recital 20 in the preamble to the basic regulation that the 
legislature's intention in introducing Article 13 was 'to deal with practices, 
including mere assembly of goods in the Community or a third country, which 
have as their main aim the circumvention of anti-dumping measures'. 
II - 3128 
STARWAY V COUNCIL 
83 Furthermore, it should be pointed out that, on a uniform interpretation, 
Article 13(2) of the basic regulation differs from the corresponding provision of 
the legislation applicable in anti-dumping matters prior to its entry into force, 
namely Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection 
against dumped or subsidised imports from countries not members of the 
European Economic Community (OJ 1988 L 209, p. 1). Without any discre­
pancy between the language versions, that regulation provides, essentially, in the 
third indent of Article 13(10)(a), that the extension of an anti-dumping duty in 
force was subject to the condition that the value of the parts used in the assembly 
operations and Originating in the country of exportation of the product subject to 
the anti-dumping duty' exceeded the value of all the other parts used by at least 
50%. By choosing different words from those used in its own previous regulation, 
the legislature may be presumed to have deliberately departed from that wording 
in order to amend the scope of the rule. 
84 It follows that, pursuant to Article 13(2) of the basic regulation, the Community 
institutions, as well as satisfying the other conditions listed there, must show that 
the parts constituting 60% or more of the total value of the parts of the assembled 
product are from the country subject to the measures, but they are not required to 
prove that those parts also originate in that country. 
85 Consequently, it follows from the basic regulation, and in particular from 
Article 13 thereof and recital 20 in the preamble thereto, that the purpose of a 
regulation extending an anti-dumping duty is to ensure the effectiveness of that 
measure and to prevent its being circumvented by, in particular, assembly 
operations in the Community or a non-member country. Thus, a measure 
extending an anti-dumping duty is merely ancillary to the initial measure 
imposing that duty. It would therefore be contrary to the purpose and general 
scheme of Article 13 of the basic regulation to impose an anti-dumping duty, 
initially imposed on imports of a product originating in certain countries, on 
imports of parts of that product from the country subject to the measures where 
the operators carrying out the assembly operations investigated by the 
Commission prove that those parts, constituting 60% or more of the total value 
of the parts of the assembled product, originated in another country. In such a 
II - 3129 
JUDGMENT OF 26. 9. 2000 — CASE T-80/97 
situation, the assembly operations cannot be considered to circumvent the anti­
dumping duty initially imposed, within the meaning of Article 13 of the basic 
regulation. 
86 That conclusion is borne out by the fact that the Community legislature provides 
in Article 13(4) of the basic regulation that imports are to be exempted from the 
extended duty where proof is adduced that they do not constitute circumvention. 
87 Contrary to what the Council and the Commission maintain, on the other hand, 
there is no reason to conclude that such proof is in any event possible only where 
the imported parts are merely transshipped via the country to which the measures 
apply. The argument put forward by the Council and the Commission that 
Article 13(2) of the basic regulation must be interpreted by analogy with 
Article 1(3) of that regulation cannot be followed. First, Article 1(3) contains a 
definition of 'exporting country', a concept to which Article 13(2) does not refer 
even by implication. Second, although as a general rule where the parts in 
question are merely transshipped via the country subject to the measures they 
originated in another country, it cannot be precluded as a matter of principle that 
proof of such origin may be adduced in other circumstances. 
88 Consequently, Article 13(2) of the basic regulation must be interpreted as 
meaning that an assembly operation in the Community or in a non-member 
country is to be regarded as circumventing the measures in force where, as well as 
satisfying the other conditions referred to in that provision, the parts constituting 
60% or more of the total value of the parts of the assembled product are from 
countries subject to the measures, unless the trader concerned provides the 
Community institutions with proof that those parts originated in another country. 
II - 3130 
STARWAY V COUNCIL 
Examination of the evidence by the Community institutions 
Arguments of the parties 
89 The applicant contends that the Community institutions were incorrect to 
consider that it did not adduce proof that it used bicycle parts originating in the 
People's Republic of China in its assembly operations up to less than 60% of the 
total value of the parts of the assembled bicycles. 
90 The applicant criticises the Community institutions for having required 
production of certificates of origin for the parts imported during the investigation 
period, which preceded not only the adoption of the regulation extending the 
duty but also the adoption of the regulation initiating the investigation. 
91 Furthermore, the applicant contends that, contrary to what emerges from recital 
15 in the preamble to the regulation extending the duty, it adduced proof that the 
bicycle parts concerned did not originate in the People's Republic of China, by 
producing other documents. 
92 First, the applicant refers to its customs declarations, which were not challenged 
by the customs authorities and which formed the basis for its reply to the 
Commission's questionnaire. Those declarations show that less than 60%, in fact 
46.9%, of the total value of the parts of the assembled product originated in the 
People's Republic of China. 
II-3131 
JUDGMENT OF 26. 9. 2000 — CASE T-80/97 
93 The applicant denies every assertation by the Council and the Commission calling 
in question the evidential value of its declarations in the present case. There is no 
reason to presume, it claims, that it made a false declaration when it declared that 
certain parts were not of Chinese origin. First, it observes that those customs 
declarations were made in tempore non suspecto, well before the investigation 
was initiated. Contrary to what the Community institutions maintain, there was 
no reason to foresee that an investigation into the circumvention of the anti­
dumping measures would subsequently be initiated. Thus it had no financial 
interest in making false customs declarations. Next, the applicant claims that the 
Community institutions' argument does not explain why it declared parts 
accounting for 53 .1% of the total value of the parts of the assembled product, an 
amount significantly higher than the 4 0 . 1 % minimum which, pursuant to 
Article 13(2)(b) of the basic regulation, was required if anti-circumvention 
measures were not to be imposed, as being of non-Chinese origin. Nor is it in any 
event plausible that the applicant intentionally made false customs declarations 
solely in order to mislead the Community institutions. Had it done so it would 
have lost its status as a preferential importer, since, unlike the People's Republic 
of China, the countries mentioned in the declarations as to the origin of the parts 
were not subject to a preferential tariff arrangement. The applicant would 
therefore have lost substantial and immediate financial advantages. Last, the 
applicant claims that the Commission never referred during the investigation to 
the slightest specific evidence on which it might call in question the accuracy of 
the declaration of origin made when the parts were imported. 
94 Second, the applicant refers to the declarations of its suppliers in Asian countries 
other than the People's Republic of China that confirm its own customs 
declarations. The applicant does not dispute that its suppliers' declarations were 
specially drawn up for the purposes of the investigation. Although it accepts that 
it is reasonable to treat the declarations made by its producers or suppliers as 
being equivalent to its own declarations owing to the connections between it and 
those producers and suppliers, there is no reason why those declarations should 
be categorically rejected as having no protective value. 
95 Third, the applicant contends that it is possible to check the accuracy of its 
customs declarations with the assistance of the documents which it delivered to 
the Commission on 25 November 1996 at the latter's express request. Those 
II - 3132 
STARWAY V COUNCIL 
documents consist of bills of materials detailing the parts ordered from CBC's 
suppliers for each model assembled by the applicant, suppliers' invoices in respect 
of those parts addressed to CBC, and packing lists and bills of lading. As the 
applicant demonstrated to the Commission's officers during the second on-the-
spot inspection, those documents make it possible to establish a definite link 
between the consignment of the bicycle parts concerned from their country of 
origin to CBC and their re-consignment by CBC to France. There is nothing 
unusual about the fact, pointed out by the Commission during the inspection, 
that CBC's suppliers numbered the invoices differently from CBC, since each 
undertaking uses its own numbering system. The other irregularity found by the 
Commission, namely that in certain cases the country of origin declared by one of 
CBC's suppliers was not the one shown on CBC's invoices, may be explained by 
the fact that that supplier transferred its production site to a different country 
from the one mentioned on the invoices. Furthermore, that irregularity does not 
affect the calculation of the value of the parts of non-Chinese origin. 
96 The Council, supported by the Commission, claims that the applicant has not 
adduced proof that the bicycle parts concerned did not originate in the People's 
Republic of China. 
97 Contrary to what the applicant maintains, the Commission was entitled in the 
present case to require production of certificates of origin. In answer to the 
written questions put by the Court, the Council and the Commission stated at the 
hearing that, since the Commission found during the investigation that the bicycle 
parts concerned had not merely been transshipped via the People's Republic of 
China but had been sorted there, and any missing parts replaced, before being re-
consigned to France, a certificate of origin was the only reliable proof. 
98 The Council and the Commission do not dispute what the applicant states about 
either the absence of a specific provision requiring production of a certificate of 
origin or the fact that it was impossible to obtain such certificates retroactively. 
II-3133 
JUDGMENT OF 26. 9. 2000 — CASE T-80/97 
However, they contend that a prudent trader in the applicant's position should 
have known as soon as the initial anti-dumping duty was imposed or, at the very 
least, when the basic regulation providing against the risk of circumvention 
entered into force that he might have to prove the origin of his imports. 
Therefore, since the applicant imported bicycle parts through an undertaking 
linked with CBC with production facilities in the country subject to the initial 
anti-dumping duty, it should have ensured that it had that sole reliable proof 
available. 
99 Consequently, the Council and the Commission contend that in any event the 
documents presented by the applicant in the course of the investigation did not 
establish that the bicycle parts coming from the People's Republic of China had 
originated in another country. 
100 First, the Council and the Commission contend that, in the context of an 
investigation into circumvention, the origin of the products cannot be established 
by the customs declarations made by the importer, especially where the importer 
is connected with the exporter in the country concerned. They refer to Articles 68 
and 78 of the Community customs code and claim that the Commission was 
entitled to check the accuracy of those declarations and to require the applicant to 
submit other documents for that purpose. The Council and the Commission also 
dispute that the customs declarations were made in tempore non suspecto, since 
the initial anti-dumping investigation had been initiated in 1991, before the 
applicant was taken over by the CBC group in 1992. Furthermore, it is evident 
from the applicant's replies to the questionnaire that its bicycle assembly 
operations expanded between 1992 and 1993. It follows that there was reason to 
suspect that the applicant's imports constituted circumvention of the measures in 
force; and the applicant ought reasonably to have supposed that it might be 
required to provide reliable evidence of the origin of the parts of the product 
forming the subject of an investigation and, subsequently, an anti-dumping duty. 
101 Next, the Council and the Commission maintain that the suppliers' declarations 
carry little weight as evidence, since they were made for the purposes of the 
II - 3134 
STARWAY V COUNCIL 
investigation by persons with an interest in the bicycle parts in question being 
declared as not being of Chinese origin. 
102 Last, as regards the documents delivered to the Commission on 25 November 
1996, the Council and the Commission put forward a series of arguments to the 
effect that the proof proposed by the applicant was not in itself reliable. Instead 
of producing certificates of origin for each imported bicycle part from the 
People's Republic of China, the applicant communicated a whole mass of 
documents, namely the applicant's orders to its suppliers in Hong Kong (CBC), 
the suppliers' invoices to the applicant and the invoices from CBC's suppliers to 
CBC, the transport documents relating to those invoices and the documents 
drawn up by the applicant for the purposes of the present dispute in order to 
enable the route followed by the products to be traced. The Council and the 
Commission emphasise that, in having recourse to this means of proof, the 
applicant required six pages of explanations in its reply, and 82 pages of annexes, 
to demonstrate the origin of a single isolated part. All together, the documents 
delivered to the Commission occupied a volume of one cubic metre. Such 
voluminous evidence made it impossible to carry out a reliable check within a 
reasonable time. The Council and the Commission maintain that, even supposing 
that, on the basis of the checks carried out on one particular model of bicycle, it 
had been established that the documents from CBC's supplier referred to the same 
parts as those sent to the applicant by CBC, it could not have been inferred that 
such a link existed in the case of the other models assembled by the applicant. 
According to a principle applied in anti-dumping matters, the undertakings 
concerned by an investigation are required to present the information requested 
in such a way as to enable a reliable check to be carried out within a reasonable 
time. Furthermore, a link between invoices and transport documents can only be 
established with the assistance of parts lists, which, because they are purely 
internal CBC documents, are less reliable than a certificate of origin issued by an 
authority in the country of origin. 
1 0 3 Last, the Council and the Commission observe that the Commission found 
certain irregularities in the course of the investigation. The numbers of the 
documents used by CBC's suppliers did not correspond with those of the parts 
which CBC delivered to the applicant. Furthermore, in certain cases the country 
of origin declared by CBC's suppliers was not the one shown on its invoices. In 
those circumstances, even if those irregularities could be explained by organisa-
II-3135 
JUDGMENT OF 26. 9. 2000 — CASE T-80/97 
tional problems within the undertakings involved, the Commission was entitled 
to take the view that those documents did not prove that the bicycle parts 
exported to the Community from the People's Republic of China had been 
imported into that State by CBC from other countries. 
Findings of the Court 
104 It is clear from the case-file that, in accordance with Article 13(2) of the basic 
regulation as interpreted in paragraph 88 above, the Commission requested the 
applicant, during the investigation, to adduce proof of the accuracy of its 
statements in the questionnaire, and based on its customs declarations, to the 
effect that the relevant bicycle parts from the People's Republic of China did not 
originate in that country. 
105 As may be seen from the letters of 12 and 21 November 1996 (see paragraphs 20 
and 24 above), the Commission therefore requested the applicant, with a view to 
carrying out a second on-the-spot inspection, to submit, for each bicycle part 
concerned and by 25 November 1996, certificates of origin and full documentary 
evidence relating to its shipment from the country of origin to the People's 
Republic of China. Following that second request, the applicant deposited, for 
each bicycle part concerned and within the prescribed period, the documentation 
referred to in paragraph 102 above. However, it did not comply with the request 
to produce certificates of origin, but informed the Commission that such 
certificates were not in its possession. It further stated that, under the legislation 
applicable when the imports in issue were effected, it was not required to submit 
them. Furthermore, it claimed that the Commission's request was unfair, since in 
order to comply with it the applicant was required to obtain, retroactively and at 
very short notice, certificates of origin for thousands of bicycle parts purchased 
from a large number of suppliers before the investigation in question had 
commenced. 
II - 3136 
STARWAY V COUNCIL 
106 Following the on-the-spot inspection of 26 and 27 November 1996, the 
Commission's officers concluded that the applicant had not adduced the proof 
requested since no certificate of origin had been produced and since they had 
detected certain irregularities in the documents submitted by the applicant which 
indicated that its customs declarations were inaccurate. It was on the basis of 
those facts that the Council adopted the regulation extending the duty, as may be 
seen from recital 15 in the preamble to that regulation. 
107 In the light of the foregoing, it must be observed at the outset that, as regards the 
imports of bicycle parts effected during the investigation period, the applicant 
was under no legal obligation by virtue of Community law to obtain certificates 
of origin in order to prove the non-preferential origin of those goods, that is to 
say, that they originated in a country not benefiting from preferential tariff 
measures with the Community. 
108 Admittedly, it follows from Articles 13(5) and 14(3) of the basic regulation and 
from Article 26(1) of the Community customs code that the Community 
institutions may introduce specific rules in relation to the documents that 
importers must be able to produce in order to show that the goods concerned 
have a non-preferential origin. However, the parties are agreed that before the 
entry into force of the regulation extending the duty no such specific rules had 
been adopted. 
109 Furthermore, the applicant submitted, without being contradicted by the Council 
and the Commission, that in the absence of a legal obligation in force in the 
country of import of the goods concerned, it is not customary practice in 
international trade to draw up certificates of origin in order to prove the non-
preferential origin of those goods. 
II -3137 
JUDGMENT OF 26. 9. 2000 — CASE T-80/97 
no Last, the Council and the Commission are wrong in their contention that a 
prudent trader should, even before the investigation had been initiated, have 
ensured that he had certificates of origin available in order to be able to adduce 
proof of the non-preferential origin of the goods concerned should that be 
necessary. First, such an obligation to show diligence cannot be inferred from the 
initial regulation. That regulation confines itself to imposing an anti-dumping 
duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China; it 
makes no reference to the rules to be observed when parts of that product are 
imported into the Community and does not even hint that the Community 
institutions will take particular care to ensure that the regulation is not 
circumvented by imports of parts of that product. Nor can such an obligation 
be inferred from the adoption of the basic regulation, which contains general 
provisions concerning the extension of the anti-dumping duties in the event of 
circumvention of a measure in force. Not only does the basic regulation confine 
itself to introducing a general system of protection against dumped imports, but, 
in addition, it does not contain any specific provision concerning the means of 
proof required when goods are imported. In that regard, moreover, the basic 
regulation does not differ from its predecessor, Regulation No 2423/88. 
111 None the less, even in the absence of a legal obligation to submit certificates of 
origin, there is nothing in principle to prevent the Community institutions from 
requesting importers, in the interests of administrative efficiency, to produce such 
documents in order to prove the accuracy of the information given in their 
customs declarations, with a view to ensuring that the objective of Article 13 of 
the basic regulation, namely to thwart circumvention, is attained. 
112 However, the Community institutions cannot, without infringing Article 13(2) of 
the basic regulation as interpreted in paragraph 88 above, require certificates of 
origin to the exclusion of any other means of proof where they are or should be 
aware that some of the traders concerned are unable to produce such certificates 
for reasons beyond their control. In those specific circumstances, such a 
requirement would be contrary to the principles of legal certainty and respect 
II - 3138 
STARWAY V COUNCIL 
for the rights of defence, in so far as it makes it impossible, in a dispute likely to 
lead to the imposition of a pecuniary charge, to prove that such a charge does not 
fall to be imposed. In such specific circumstances, to refuse other means of proof 
is tantamount to denying the defending party the right to produce exculpatory 
documents (ultra posse nemo tenetur). 
113 In those circumstances, moreover, the requirement of such evidence is not an 
appropriate means of attaining the objective pursued, namely to thwart 
circumvention of the duty initially imposed. The requirement of proof that is 
impossible to furnish may have the consequence that the application of the 
extended duty is not limited solely to imports of parts in circumstances 
constituting circumvention of the duty within the meaning of Article 13 of the 
basic regulation. Such a requirement would therefore also be contrary to the 
principle of proportionality. 
114 In the present case, it follows from the facts summarised in paragraphs 104 to 
106 above that the applicant informed the Community institutions that it did not 
have the certificates of origin for the bicycle parts in question in its possession and 
that it was physically impossible to obtain such certificates retroactively and 
within the period specified by the Commission for the imports effected during the 
investigation period. For that matter, it may be added, it was indeed, as became 
apparent during the proceedings before the Court, wholly impossible for the 
applicant to submit the certificates of origin which it had been requested to 
produce. In an annex to its reply, the applicant produced affidavits from the 
Chambers of Commerce of the two Asian countries in which the bicycle parts 
concerned originated, which state that certificates of origin are not issued more 
than three months after the products concerned have been despatched. That 
evidence was not disputed by the Council or Commission. 
115 In the exceptional circumstances of the present case, the Commission's officers 
could not validly demand production of certificates of origin, but were required 
II-3139 
JUDGMENT OF 26. 9. 2000 — CASE T-80/97 
to examine, not cursorily, but carefully and impartially, the documents which the 
applicant had delivered to them during the investigation in order to prove the 
accuracy of the information given in its customs declarations, namely that the 
bicycle parts which it imported into the Community originated in countries other 
than the People's Republic of China. 
116 It is therefore necessary to consider whether the Community institutions did in 
fact carefully and impartially examine the documents communicated by the 
applicant before rejecting them as insufficient evidence. 
117 In that respect, the Community institutions have in the first place essentially 
submitted argument to the effect that, in view of the volume and complexity of 
the documentation transmitted, that evidence was not acceptable as such, since it 
did not enable the Commission to carry out a reliable check within a reasonable 
time. However, while it is true that tight deadlines and, accordingly, increased 
need for administrative efficiency are characteristic of anti-dumping procedures, 
it should be pointed out that in the present case it was impossible for the 
applicant to provide alternative evidence which could have been checked more 
easily. Moreover, as the Commission's letters of 12 and 21 November 1996 show 
(see paragraphs 20 and 24 above), it was at the Commission's express request that 
the applicant sent it that voluminous documentation in order to prove the 
accuracy of its customs declarations. The Community institutions were therefore 
wrong, in the exceptional circumstances of the present case, in rejecting that 
evidence because of its volume and complexity. 
118 It is true, moreover, that in the letter of 19 December 1996 summarising the 
results of the second on-the-spot inspection the Commission identified two 
irregularities in relation to those documents. According to that letter, the numbers 
II - 3140 
STARWAY v COUNCIL 
of the parts delivered by CBC's suppliers did not correspond with the numbers of 
the parts which CBC used for its supplies to the applicant and, in certain cases, 
the country of origin declared by those suppliers was not the one shown on CBC's 
invoices. It is clear from the documents before the Court, however, that during the 
second on-the-spot inspection the applicant provided explanations for each of 
those irregularities. When questioned by the Court about those irregularities and 
the documents which it and the Commission maintained the applicant should 
have produced, the Council replied that in its view it was 'extremely difficult' to 
adduce proof of the origin of the bicycle parts concerned without certificates of 
origin. The Council further stated at the hearing that, in the circumstances of the 
present case, namely where the bicycle parts had not merely been transshipped via 
the People's Republic of China, the production of certificates of origin was the 
only reliable means of proof and the documents presented by the applicant could 
not have been accepted as sufficient proof even if the Commission had not 
detected those irregularities. 
119 In the light of the foregoing, the Court is satisfied that the Community 
institutions did not carefully and impartially examine the documents sent to 
them. In an exceptional situation such as that obtaining in the present case, the 
Community institutions could not validly reject the documents as being, without 
further consideration, of no evidential value and require the applicant to adduce 
evidence of a nature that it was impossible for it to provide. 
120 It follows that the Council was wrong in concluding that the applicant had not 
adduced proof that the bicycle parts which it imported from the People's Republic 
of China, constituting 60% or more of the total value of the parts of the 
assembled bicycles, originated from a country other than that State. Conse­
quently, the Council infringed Article 13(2) of the basic regulation by extending 
the anti-dumping duty imposed by the initial regulation to imports of bicycle 
parts effected by the applicant. 
II -3141 
JUDGMENT OF 26. 9. 2000 — CASE T-80/97 
Conclusion 
121 Without its being necessary to examine the merits of the second plea in law, 
Article 2 of the regulation extending the duty must therefore be annulled in so far 
as it concerns the applicant. 
122 Pursuant to Article 2(3) of the regulation extending the duty, the extended duty is 
to be collected on imports of essential bicycle parts which, in accordance with 
Article 2 of the regulation initiating the investigation, were registered by the 
customs authorities on the entry into force of the latter regulation on 20 April 
1996. Consequently, and having regard to the form of order sought by the 
applicant (see paragraph 51 above), Article 2 of the regulation extending the duty 
must be annulled in so far as it concerns imports of essential bicycle parts by the 
applicant between 20 April 1996 and 18 April 1997, the date on which the 
decision of exemption of 28 January 1998 took effect. 
Costs 
123 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the 
unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in 
the successful party's pleadings. Since the Council has been unsuccessful, it must 
be ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant. 
124 In accordance w i th Article 87(4) of the Rules of Procedure , the Commiss ion m u s t 
be ordered to bear its own costs. 
II - 3142 
STARWAY V COUNCIL 
On those grounds, 
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE 
(Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 
hereby: 
1. Annuls Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 of 10 January 1997 
extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EEC) 
No 2474/93 on bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China to 
imports of certain bicycle parts from the People's Republic of China, and 
levying the extended duty on such imports registered under Regulation (EC) 
No 703/96, in so far as it concerns imports of essential bicycle parts by the 
applicant between 20 April 1996 and 18 April 1997; 
2. Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the 
applicant; 
3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs. 
Lenaerts Tiili Azizi 
Jaeger Mengozzi 
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 26 September 2000. 
H.Jung 
Registrar 
K. Lenaerts 
President 
II - 3143