Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 April 2015 — VTZ and Others v Council

(Case T‑432/12)

‛Dumping — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Expiry review — Likelihood of recurrence of injury — European Union interest — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons’

1. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Expiry review procedure — Maintenance of an anti-dumping measure — Conditions — Continuation or reappearance of the injury — Interpretation in the light of the 1994 GATT Anti-Dumping Agreement — Criteria for assessment — Existence of a likelihood that the injury will continue or reappear — Discretion of the institutions — Scope — Judicial review — Limits (Agreement on the implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, ‘1994 Anti-dumping Agreement’, Art. 11.3; Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Art. 11(2), first para.) (see paras 20-26, 80)

2. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Course of the investigation — Use of the information available where the undertaking refuses cooperation — Conditions — Refusal of access to the necessary information — Distinction between the situations envisaged respectively by Articles 18(1) and 18(3) of the basic anti-dumping regulation (Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Arts 6(2), and 18(1) and (3)) (see paras 29, 34‑37)

3. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Expiry review procedure — Maintenance of an anti-dumping measure — Conditions — Continuation or reappearance of the dumping — Assessment having regard to the probable volume of cumulative imports from various exporting countries — Conditions — No need for a real substantial volume of imports from each country — No need to examine the volumes and evolution of imports from the various countries concerned (Agreement on the implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, ‘1994 Anti-dumping Agreement’, Art. 3.3; Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Arts 3(4), and 11(2)) (see paras 42, 45-48, 56-58)

4. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Principle of equal treatment in relation to imports from various countries — Scope in relation to imports of negligible volume — Different treatment, in the context of a re-examination procedure, by reference to the respective potential for increase — No infringement of the principle of equal treatment (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 21; Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Arts 9(5), and 11(2)) (see paras 62-64, 131, 132, 171)

5. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Expiry review procedure — Maintenance of an anti-dumping measure — Conditions — Continuation or reappearance of the injury — Interpretation of the evidence corroborating the existence of a probability that the injury will reappear — No stricter proof required than with regard to the probability of continuation of the damage (Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Art. 11(2)) (see paras 73, 74)

6. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Expiry review procedure — Maintenance of an anti-dumping measure — Conditions — Continuation or reappearance of the injury — Circumstances to be taken into consideration in order to assess the existence of a probability that the injury will continue or reappear — Existence of significant unused production capacity — Re-establishment of the EU industry — Need for an overall assessment of all the relevant factors (Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Art. 11(2)) (see paras 92, 93, 108, 109, 124-128)

7. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties — Errors and contradictions irrelevant to the conclusion — No infringement of the duty to state reasons (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 96, 97, 191, 201, 204-207)

8. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Plea raised for the first time at the hearing or the reply stage — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), and 48(2), first para.) (see paras 101, 158)

9. Actions for annulment — Contested act — Assessment of legality in the light of the information available at the time of adoption of the measure (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 118)

10. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Expiry review procedure — Maintenance of an anti-dumping measure — Conditions — Existence of an EU interest — Assessment — Need to balance the various individual and general interests — Scope of the obligation to state reasons — Judicial review — Limits (Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Arts 9(4), 11(2), (5) and (9), and 21) (see paras 135-144, 154, 160-164, 167)

11. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Probability that the injury will continue or reappear — Discretion of the institutions — Limits — Compliance with the principles of sound administration and rights of the defence (Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Arts 11(2), and 20) (see paras 177-179)

12. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Infringement by an institution of its rules of procedure — Rules on consultation of Member States within the anti-dumping consultative committee — Plea raised by a natural or legal person by reason of non-transmission or late transmission to the committee of documents not containing important information — No infringement of essential procedural requirements (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1225/2009, Art. 15) (see paras 180-184, 212, 216, 217)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 of 26 June 2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, and terminating the expiry review proceeding concerning imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Croatia (OJ 2012 L 174, p. 5), in so far as it applies to the applicants.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Volžskij trubnyi zavod OAO (VTZ OAO), Taganrogskij metallurgičeskij zavod OAO (Tagmet OAO), Sinarskij trubnyj zavod OAO (SinTZ OAO) and Severskij trubnyj zavod OAO (STZ OAO) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;