62021CJ0507_INF
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 September 2022 –Puma and Others v Commission
(Case C-507/21 P) (
1
)
(Appeal – Dumping – Imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam – Implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C‑659/13 and C‑34/14 – Reimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty – Competence ratione temporis – Principle of non-discrimination)
1.
Appeal – Grounds – Inadequate statement of reasons – Scope of the obligation to state reasons – Obligation for the General Court to clearly and unequivocally disclose its reasoning
(Art. 256(1), second subpara., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 117(m))
(see paragraphs 50-54)
2.
Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Anti-dumping proceeding – Anti-dumping duties imposed pursuant to the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation No 1225/2009 – Judgment declaring regulations imposing anti-dumping duties invalid – Regulation seeking to implement a declaration of invalidity – Adoption of that regulation on the basis of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation 2016/1036 – Whether permissible
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Arts 9 and 14(1))
(see paragraphs 57-59)
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 – Reimposition of the anti-dumping duties on importations made during the application period of the invalidated regulations – No breach of principle of proportionality
(Art. 266 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036)
(see paragraphs 65-69)
4.
Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Discretion of the institutions – Change of approach as regards certain importers becoming subject to reinstituted anti-dumping duties – Change resulting from the reallocation of powers between the Council and the Commission – Whether permissible – No infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of non-discrimination
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Art. 9(4); Council Regulations No 384/96, Art. 9(4), and No 1225/2009, Art. 9(4))
(see paragraphs 71-80, 88)
5.
Appeal – Grounds – Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of EU law – Operative part well founded for other legal reasons – Rejection
(Art. 256(1), second subpara., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)
(see paragraph 81)
6.
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 – Resumption of the proceeding that preceded the regulations declared invalid with the aim of re-imposing anti-dumping duties – Whether permissible – Expiry of the limitation period of the customs debt – Irrelevant – No infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations
(Council Regulations No 2913/92, Arts 217(1) and 221(1) and (3), and No 384/96, Art. 9(4); Commission Regulation 2016/223, Art. 1(2))
(see paragraphs 83-87)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the appeal;
2.
Orders Puma SE, Puma United Kingdom Ltd, Puma Nordic AB, Austria Puma Dassler GmbH, Puma Italia Srl, Puma France SAS, Puma Denmark A/S, Puma Iberia SL and Puma Retail AG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.
(
1
)	OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.