Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2024:978
Date: 2024-11-21
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Dumping;External relations;Commercial policy;Overseas countries and territories
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged:  
24 November 2022 
Referring court:  
Hof van beroep Antwerpen (Belgium) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
6 October 2022 
Applicants:  
Openbaar Ministerie 
Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën 
Defendants:  
Profit Europe NV 
Gosselin Forwarding Services NV 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
The main proceedings concern a criminal case in which the defendants are alleged 
to have evaded anti-dumping duties on imports of certain cast iron products from 
the People’s Republic of China by using incorrect tariff codes and designations 
and making erroneous consumption declarations at the time of declaration. As a 
result, it is unclear whether the product must be classified as malleable cast iron, 
which is subject to anti-dumping duties. In particular, it is important to ascertain 
whether malleable cast iron includes spheroidal graphite cast iron. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
After the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Court’) ruled in the 
judgment in Case C-362/20, delivered in the same main proceedings, that 
Regulation No 1071/2012 and Implementing Regulation No 430/2013 apply also 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-719/22 
 
2  
to spheroidal graphite cast iron, this request raises the question, on the basis of 
Article 267 TFEU, as to whether, as a result of this applicability to spheroidal 
graphite cast iron, these regulations are invalid due to infringement of Articles 1, 
5, 6 and 9 of Regulation No 1225/2009 (‘the basic anti-dumping regulation’). 
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
Do Regulation (EU) No 1071/2012 and Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 violate 
Articles 1, 5, 6 and 9 of Basic Regulation 1225/2009, in so far as they subject 
imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of spheroidal graphite cast iron, 
originating in the People’s Republic of China to anti-dumping duties upon import, 
when neither the complaint for the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding nor 
the notice of initiation of the anti-dumping measure identified such goods as the 
product concerned, no evidence of dumping, injury and a causal link was 
produced and the European Commission did not in any way investigate their 
normal value, export price, possible margin of dumping, possible injury, the 
extent of the injury, the impact of other known factors on the injury, the causal 
link between dumping and injury and the need to subject those goods (threaded 
tube or pipe cast fittings) to anti-dumping duties in the interest of the Union? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1071/2012 of 14 November 2012 imposing a 
provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of 
malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand; in 
particular recitals 16 and 28 and Article 1(1) 
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a 
definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, 
originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand and terminating the 
proceeding with regard to Indonesia; in particular recital 13 and Article 1(1) 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community; 
in particular Articles 1, 5, 6 and 9 
Article 267 TFEU 
Case-law of the Court relied on 
Judgment of 12 July 2018, Profit Europe, C-397/17 and C-398/17, 
EU:C:2018:564 
Judgment of 15 July 2021, Profit Europe and Gosselin Forwarding Services, 
C-362/20, EU:C:2021:612 
OPENBAAR MINISTERIE AND FEDERALE OVERHEIDSDIENST FINANCIËN 
 
3 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Articles 11, 12, 14, 24, 31 to 37 and 41 of the Wet van 15 juni 1935 op het 
gebruik der talen in gerechtszaken (Law of 15 June 1935 on the use of languages 
in judicial proceedings) 
Articles 162, 185, 190, 190b, 194, 195, 199, 200, 202, 203, 203a, 204, 210 and 
211 of the Wetboek van Strafvordering (Code of Criminal Procedure) 
Articles 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the Strafwetboek (Criminal Code) 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 Proceedings have been brought against Profit Europe NV (‘the first respondent’ or 
‘Profit Europe’) and Gosselin Forwarding Services NV (‘the second respondent’ 
or ‘Gosselin Forwarding Services’), as importer and declarant respectively, for the 
declaration under an incorrect tariff code and the designation of certain tube or 
pipe cast fittings manufactured from malleable cast iron, originating in the 
People’s Republic of China, which are subject to anti-dumping duties, during the 
period from 19 November 2012 to 30 June 2015. At issue were 97 declarations, 
whereby anti-dumping duties in the amount of EUR 651 954.11 were evaded 
(offence 1). 
2 In addition, proceedings have been brought against both respondents for the 
declaration of incorrect customs values on seven of those declarations, resulting in 
an underpayment of EUR 10 086 in import duties (offence 2). 
3 By judgment of 28 March 2019, the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Antwerpen 
(Court of First Instance, Antwerp, Belgium) acquitted the first respondent of 
offences 1 and 2 and acquitted the second respondent of offence 1, but found it 
guilty of offence 2. The tax claim was declared unfounded. 
4 On 16 April 2019, the Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën (administratie douane 
en accijnzen) (Federal Public Service Finance (General Administration of 
Customs and Excise); ‘FOD Financiën’) lodged an appeal against the 
aforementioned judgment with the Hof van beroep Antwerpen (Court of Appeal, 
Antwerp, Belgium), the referring court. 
5 On 18 June 2020, the referring court referred a question to the Court for a 
preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU for the first time. It wished to know 
whether threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of spheroidal graphite cast iron, from 
China, were subject to anti-dumping duties under Regulation No 1071/2012 and 
Implementing Regulation No 430/2013. In its judgment of 15 July 2021, Profit 
Europe and Gosselin Forwarding Services (C-362/20, EU:C:2021:612), the Court 
held that those regulations must be interpreted as meaning ‘that the provisional 
and definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by those regulations apply to threaded 
tube or pipe cast fittings of spheroidal graphite cast iron, originating in China’. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-719/22 
 
4  
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
6 Profit Europe and Gosselin Forwarding Services submit that Regulation 
No 1071/2012 and Implementing Regulation No 430/2013 are invalid for 
violation of Articles 1, 5, 6 and 9 of Basic Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
7 On 16 February 2012, the European Commission initiated an anti-dumping 
proceeding concerning imports into the European Union of threaded tube or pipe 
cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China, 
Thailand and Indonesia (notice of initiation in OJ 2012 C 44, p. 33). This followed 
a complaint lodged on 3 January 2012 by the Defence Committee of Tube or Pipe 
Cast Fittings, of Malleable Cast Iron of the European Union. That committee is an 
interest group for malleable cast iron, not spheroidal graphite cast iron. 
8 Recital 16 of Regulation No 1071/2012 (‘the provisional regulation’) states that 
‘the product concerned as described in the Notice of Initiation is threaded tube or 
pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron …, currently falling within CN code ex 
7307 19 10’. According to recital 28, the authorities of one of the Member States 
pointed out the fact that, according to the explanatory notes to the Combined 
Nomenclature, the term ‘malleable cast iron’ includes spheroidal graphite cast 
iron (identical to ductile cast iron). It is possible that, during the investigation 
period, threaded fittings made from spheroidal graphite cast iron were sold. Since 
those fittings have the same basic physical characteristics as the threaded fittings 
of malleable cast iron under investigation, they are subject to the same proceeding 
and measures. 
9 On the basis inter alia of those recitals, Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1071/2012 
provides for the imposition of an anti-dumping duty on the product concerned. 
Subsequently, a definitive anti-dumping duty was imposed in Article 1(1) of 
Implementing Regulation No 430/2013. 
10 The referring court points out that spheroidal graphite cast iron is referred to only 
in the aforementioned recital 28. Only malleable cast iron was referred to in the 
complaint and in the notice of initiation. The addition of spheroidal graphite cast 
iron can be traced back only to an ex post observation made by a Member State 
when the Commission had already conducted its investigation into the alleged 
dumping. 
11 The Commission therefore did not investigate the fittings of spheroidal graphite 
cast iron. As the Court held in its judgment of 12 July 2018, Profit Europe 
(C-397/17 and C-398/17, EU:C:2018:564), spheroidal graphite cast iron and 
malleable iron differ in terms of their composition and method of production. 
Thus, the Commission did not have numerical evidence to investigate whether 
tube or pipe cast fittings of spheroidal graphite cast iron were being imported into 
the European Union at dumped prices, whether that dumping was causing injury 
OPENBAAR MINISTERIE AND FEDERALE OVERHEIDSDIENST FINANCIËN 
 
5 
and whether it was in the Union’s interest to subject those imports to anti-
dumping measures. 
12 In those circumstances, the question is whether, without that information, the 
Commission was able to determine, on the basis of an observation by which a 
single Member State indicated that, according to the explanatory notes to the 
Combined Nomenclature then in force, the expression malleable cast iron includes 
spheroidal graphite cast iron, that there was dumping and injury as regards the 
tube or pipe cast fittings of spheroidal graphite cast iron. 
13 It is therefore not clear whether Regulation No 1071/2012 and Implementing 
Regulation No 430/2013 are indeed compatible with Regulation No 1225/2009 
(the basic regulation), in which detailed provisions concerning the implementation 
of an anti-dumping investigation and the required information are set out. That is 
why the referring court asks, in its second question referred for a preliminary 
ruling in the present case, about the validity of those anti-dumping regulations. It 
refers, in that regard, to Article 5(2) and Article 5(10) of Regulation 
No 1225/2009. The first provision sets out the information that a complaint must 
contain, including a full description of the allegedly dumped product. The second 
provision describes the information that must be included in the notice of 
initiation. It is possible that Articles 1, 6 and 9 of Regulation No 1225/2009 have 
also been violated. The referring court mentions those articles in its question, but 
does not provide any further explanation in that regard.