Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 13 December 2013 — C & J Clark International Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

(Case C-659/13)

(2014/C 71/14)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C & J Clark International Ltd

Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Questions referred

1. Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (1) invalid in so far as it violates Articles 2(7)(b) and 9(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation [Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2)] given that the Commission did not examine the market economy treatment and individual treatment claims submitted by exporting producers in China and Vietnam that were not sampled in accordance with Article 17 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation?

2. Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it violates Article 2(7)(c) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation [Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96] given that the Commission did not make a determination within three months of the initiation of the investigation of the market economy treatment claims submitted by exporting producers in China and Vietnam that were not sampled pursuant to Article 17 of the basic antidumping Regulation?

3. Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it violates Article 2(7)(c) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation [Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96] given that the Commission did not make a determination within three months of the initiation of the investigation of the market economy treatment claims submitted by exporting producers in China and Vietnam that were sampled pursuant to Article 17 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation?

4. Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it violates Articles 3, 4(1), 5(4), and 17 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation [Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96] given that insufficient Community industry producers cooperated so as to allow the Commission to make a valid injury assessment and, as a result, a valid. Causation assessment?

5. Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it violates Article 3(2) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation [Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96] and Article 253 of the EC treaty given that evidence in the investigation file showed that the Community industry injury was assessed using materially flawed data, and given that the Regulation does not provide any explanation why this evidence was ignored?

6. Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it violates Article 3(7) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation [Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96] given that the effects of other factors known to be causing injury were not properly separated and distinguished from the effects of the allegedly dumped imports?

7. To what extent may Member State courts rely on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 made by the Court of Justice in the framework of cases C-249/10 P Brosmann and C-247/10 P Zhejiang Aokang to consider that duties were not legally owed within the meaning of Article 236 of the Community Customs Code [Council Regulation 2913/92 (3)] for companies that, just as the Appellants in the Brosmann and Zhejiang Aokang cases, were not sampled but did submit market economy treatment and individual treatment requests that were not examined?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 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 Vietnam

OJ L 275, p. 1

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community

OJ L 56, p. 1

(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code

OJ L 302, p. 1