Case T-330/07: Action brought on 30 August 2007 — Kuiburi Fruit Canning v Council
Date: 2007-11-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Thailand, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping legislation, import, maize, originating product

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/53

Action brought on 30 August 2007 — Kuiburi Fruit
Canning v Council

(Case T-330/07)

(2007/C 269/95)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kuiburi Fruit Canning Co., Ltd (Bangkok, Thailand)
(represented by: F. Graafsma, J. Cornelis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 682/2007 of
18 June 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and
collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
imports of certain prepared or preserved sweet corn in
kernels originating in Thailand;

— order that the Council of the European Communities pays

the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This application seeks annulment of Council Regulation (EC)
No 682/2007 (1) of 18 June 2007 in that it allegedly infringes
Article 17(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/1996 (2)
and
Article 6(10)(2) of the WTO Agreement (3), by rejecting the
applicant's request for an individual margin of dumping despite
the fact that the applicant claims to be the only exporting
producer having submitted the necessary information for the
calculation of the individual margin.

First, according to the applicant, the Council committed a mani-
fest error of assessment in concluding that there was more than
one request for the calculation of an individual margin.

Second,
the applicant claims that, as there was only one
exporting producer that requested the calculation of an indivi-
dual margin, the Council did not have the discretion to deter-
mine whether an individual examination for
the applicant
would be unduly burdensome and would prevent completion of
the investigation in good time.

Finally, the applicant submits that the Council has committed a
manifest error of assessment by concluding that the calculation
of an individual margin for the applicant would have been
discriminatory towards other non-sampled exporters.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 682/2007 of 18 June 2007 imposing a
definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provi-
sional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved
sweet corn in kernels originating in Thailand (OJ L 159, p. 14).

(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) Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (1986-1994) —
Annex 1 — Annex 1A — Agreement on Implementation of
Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
(WTO-GATT 1994) — Anti-dumping agreement (OJ L 336, p. 103).

Action brought on 4 September 2007 — Germany v
Commission

(Case T-332/07)

(2007/C 269/96)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M.
Lumma, Agent, and C. von Donat, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision C(2007) 2619 final of 25 July
2007 reducing the European Regional Development Fund
assistance granted by Decision C/1994/3379 for
the
single programming document
for Community structural
assistance in the Objective 2 regions of the Land North
Rhine-Westphalia in the Federal Republic of Germany (EFRE
No 94.02.13.012);

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Third, should the Council have such discretion, the applicant
the Council committed a manifest error of
contends that
appraisal in finding that additional examination of one exporter
would have been unduly burdensome, preventing the comple-
tion of the investigation in time.

By the contested decision, the Commission reduced the assis-
tance of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for
the programming for Community structural assistance in the
Objective 2 regions of the Land North Rhine-Westphalia.

Pleas in law and main arguments