Case C‑638/11 P

Council of the European Union

v

Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd

‛Appeal — Dumping — Imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 3(7) — Concept of ‘other factors’’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 14 November 2013

Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Injury — Establishing a causal link — Obligations of the institutions — Whether factors extraneous to dumping to be taken into account — Abolition of previous anti-dumping duties and ordinary customs duties under the system of generalised tariff preferences — Not included

(Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (‘The 1994 Anti-Dumping Agreement’), Art. 3.5; Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 3(7) and No 1225/2009, Art. 3(7))

It is apparent from the wording of Article 3(7) of basic anti-dumping Regulation No 384/96 (now Article 3(7) of Regulation No 1225/2009), in particular the words ‘Known factors … which are injuring the Community industry’, that that regulation requires the factors which are directly causing injury to be examined, which presupposes the existence of a direct causal link.

By contrast, the changes to the legislative conditions under which the dumped imports take place cannot be regarded, as such, as causing injury. It is the imports themselves which are causing injury. The dumped imports and the legislative conditions under which they take place are inseparable.

Therefore, the abolition of the ordinary customs duties under the scheme of generalised tariff preferences and the abolition of the previous anti-dumping duties, which facilitate and promote imports, are only indirect causes and cannot be regarded as ‘other factors’ within the meaning of Article 3(7) of Regulation No 384/96.

(see paras 28-31)

Case C‑638/11 P

Council of the European Union

v

Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd

‛Appeal — Dumping — Imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 3(7) — Concept of ‘other factors’’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 14 November 2013

Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Injury — Establishing a causal link — Obligations of the institutions — Whether factors extraneous to dumping to be taken into account — Abolition of previous anti-dumping duties and ordinary customs duties under the system of generalised tariff preferences — Not included

(Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (‘The 1994 Anti-Dumping Agreement’), Art. 3.5; Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 3(7) and No 1225/2009, Art. 3(7))

It is apparent from the wording of Article 3(7) of basic anti-dumping Regulation No 384/96 (now Article 3(7) of Regulation No 1225/2009), in particular the words ‘Known factors … which are injuring the Community industry’, that that regulation requires the factors which are directly causing injury to be examined, which presupposes the existence of a direct causal link.

By contrast, the changes to the legislative conditions under which the dumped imports take place cannot be regarded, as such, as causing injury. It is the imports themselves which are causing injury. The dumped imports and the legislative conditions under which they take place are inseparable.

Therefore, the abolition of the ordinary customs duties under the scheme of generalised tariff preferences and the abolition of the previous anti-dumping duties, which facilitate and promote imports, are only indirect causes and cannot be regarded as ‘other factors’ within the meaning of Article 3(7) of Regulation No 384/96.

(see paras 28-31)