Case T-372/05: Action brought on  5 October 2005  — Giant (China)/Council
Date: 2005-12-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: China, Council of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, export price, import, market economy, organisation, two-wheeled vehicle

10.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/17

In support of its claims, the applicant relies on two pleas. By
the first, the applicant claims that the Commission misapplied
Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/99 (1) since it did not prove
the existence of an infringement of the Community rules by
the French Government regarding the calculation of aid for
restructuring and reconversion of vineyards, nor the existence
of harm allegedly caused to the Community budget by the
calculation method chosen by the French Government.

The second plea raised by the applicant alleged an insufficient
statement of reasons, since the contested decision did not
explain the rules which the Commission intended to be applied
to the non-planted areas, capable of being taken into account
in the calculation of aid, nor did it justify clearly application of
a financial correction of 10 % to the amounts of aid for restruc-
turing and reconversion of vineyards.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the
the common agricultural policy, OJ L 160 of

financing of
26.06.1999, p. 103.

Action brought on 5 October 2005 — Giant (China)/
Council

(Case T-372/05)

(2005/C 315/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Giant
Republic of China) [represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer]

(China) Co., Ltd (Kunshan City, People's

Defendant(s): Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1095/2005 (1), of 12
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
July 2005,
imports of bicycles originating in Vietnam, and amending
Regulation (EC) No 1524/2000, imposing a definitive anti-
dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the
People's Republic of China, insofar as it rejects the appli-
cant's market economy status claim in breach of Article
2(7)(b), in connection with Article 2(7)(c), of Council Regu-
lation 384/96 (‘the basic regulation’), violates Article
11(10), of the basic regulation, in that it rejects the appli-

cant's claim for non-deduction of the anti-dumping duty
from the constructed export price and violates Article 253
EC, inasmuch as it fails to state reasons;

— order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a limited company incorporated under Chinese
law, mainly produces bicycles and parts thereof, exporting to
the Community. Being affected by the contested measures, the
applicant
submitted an application to the Commission,
requesting to benefit from market economy status (‘MES’). The
applicant also submitted anti-dumping questionnaires and
engaged in correspondence with the Commission raising a
number of issues.

The applicant now challenges the contested Regulation, first
addressing the rejection of its MES claim. According to the
applicant, its claim was rejected on the consideration that, due
to the existence of an export licensing system, the applicant's
decisions regarding sales prices and quantities, were not taken
in response to market signals and without significant state
interference. The applicant argues that Article 2(7)(b), of the
basic regulation, should be interpreted in the sense that MES
should be granted if
in a particular case market economy
conditions prevail, notwithstanding the existence of national
legislation or mechanisms not conforming with those in place
in market economies. Since the contested Regulation failed to
address its own particular situation, the applicant considers that
there has been a manifest error of assessment leading to a
violation of Article 2(7)(b). In the same context, the applicant
the
invokes a violation of Article 253 EC inasmuch as
contested Regulation allegedly fails to state the reasons for
which the MES claim was rejected.

The applicant also challenges the rejection of his claim that the
amount of the anti-dumping duty should not be deducted from
the constructed export price, as a cost between importation
and resale, in accordance with Article 11(10) of the basic regu-
lation. The applicant considers that the Council erred in law,
insofar as it considered that there was no movement in the
resale and subsequent selling prices by reference to the appli-
cant's export prices established in the previous investigations.
According to the applicant, there was no export price estab-
lished for it in previous investigations. Further, the applicant
argues that Article 11(10) does not require the movement to
be assessed by reference to export prices established in the
previous investigations.

(1) OJ L 183, p. 1.