62016CJ0612_INF
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 June 2019 — C & J Clark International
(Case C‑612/16) (
1
)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Anti-dumping — Interpretation and validity of regulations re-imposing anti-dumping duties following the delivery by the Court of a judgment declaring invalidity — Legal basis — Non-retroactivity — Limitation)
1.
Action for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Obligation to implement — Possibility to adopt on the basis of Article 266 TFEU — None — Requirement for a legal basis in force at the date of adoption
(Art. 5(2) TEU; Art. 266 TFEU)
(see paras 35-38)
2.
Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Anti-dumping proceeding — Judgment declaring regulations imposing anti-dumping duties invalid — Adoption of a regulation seeking to implement the declaration of invalidity — Adoption of that regulation on the basis of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation 2016/1036 — Whether permissible
(Art. 266 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Arts 9 and 14)
(see paras 39-42)
3.
Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Anti-dumping proceeding — Judgment declaring regulations imposing anti-dumping duties invalid — Adoption of a regulation seeking to implement the declaration of invalidity — Regulation ordering national authorities to suspend the repayment of the anti-dumping duties concerned — Whether permissible
(Art. 266 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Arts 9 and 14; Council Regulation No 952/2013, Art. 117)
(see para. 46)
4.
Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Anti-dumping proceeding — Judgment declaring regulations imposing anti-dumping duties invalid — Adoption of a regulation seeking to implement the declaration of invalidity — Examination limited to solely producers having requested reimbursement of the anti-dumping duties concerned — Whether permissible
(Art. 266 TFEU; Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 236; Commission Regulation 2016/223)
(see para. 48)
5.
Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Anti-dumping proceeding — Judgment declaring regulations imposing anti-dumping duties invalid — Adoption of a regulation seeking to implement the declaration of invalidity — Reimposition of the anti-dumping duties on importations made during the application period of the invalidated regulations — Breach of the principle of non-retroactivity — None
(Art. 266 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, 10(1); Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 10(1))
(see paras 51-56)
6.
Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Anti-dumping proceeding — Judgment declaring regulations imposing anti-dumping duties invalid — Grounds for invalidity external to the assessment of the Union’s interest — Adoption of a regulation seeking to implement the declaration of invalidity — Reimposition of the anti-dumping duties on importations made during the application period of the invalidated regulations — Obligation to make a new assessment of the Union’s interest — None
(Art. 266 TFEU; Council Regulatioon No 384/96, Art. 9(4) and 21)
(see paras 59-66)
7.
Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Anti-dumping proceeding — Judgment declaring regulations imposing anti-dumping duties invalid — Adoption of a regulation seeking to implement the declaration of invalidity — Reimposition of the anti-dumping duties on importations made during the application period of the invalidated regulations — Limitation scheme — Reference to the provisions in force in relation to customs duties — Scope
(Council Regulations No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, Arts 221(3) and 243, No 1472/2006, Art. 1(4) and No 1294/2009, Art. 1(5))
(see paras 75, 78-84)
Operative part
1.
An examination of the questions of validity referred to the Court has revealed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 of 18 August 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and produced by Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co. Ltd, Buildyet Shoes Mfg., DongGuan Elegant Top Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Stella Footwear Co. Ltd, Dongguan Taiway Sports Goods Limited, Foshan City Nanhai Qun Rui Footwear Co., Jianle Footwear Industrial, Sihui Kingo Rubber Shoes Factory, Synfort Shoes Co. Ltd, Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co. Ltd, Wei Hao Shoe Co. Ltd, Wei Hua Shoe Co. Ltd, Win Profile Industries Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C‑659/13 and C‑34/14, or the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 of 13 September 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Ltd, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd, Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C‑659/13 and C‑34/14;
2.
The rules on limitation laid down in Article 221(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, are applicable to the collection of the anti-dumping duties established by the implementing regulations referred to in point 1 of the operative part of the present judgment.
(
1
)	OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.