Case C-374/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 August 2012 — Valimar OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa — Varna
Date: 2012-08-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: anti-dumping duty, dumping, export price, import (EU), interpretation of the law, steel








C_2012311EN.01000601.xml










13.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/6





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 August 2012 — Valimar OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa — Varna
(Case C-374/12)
2012/C 311/07
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Valimar OOD

Respondent: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa — Varna

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 11(9) and the first sentence of Article 11(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/1996 (1) of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (now Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) of 30 November 2009) (‘the Basic Regulation’) in conjunction with Article 2(8) and (9) of that regulation to be interpreted as meaning that, if no change in circumstances is proved for the purpose of Article 11(9), those provisions take precedence over any implicit powers of the institutions arising from Article 11(3) of the Basic Regulation for determining the export price, including — as in the case of Council Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007 (3) — the implicit power of the institutions to assess the reliability of the export prices of Severstal-Metiz in the future by making a comparison with the minimum prices according to the price undertaking and the selling prices in third countries? Is the reply to that question affected if, as in the case of Severstal-Metiz and Council Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007, the institutions decide, when exercising their powers in connection with assessing the stability of the change in circumstances regarding the existence of dumping in accordance with Article 11(3) of the Basic Regulation, to vary the anti-dumping measure (reduce the duty rate)?










2.


Does it follow from the reply to the first question that, in the circumstances which are described in the part of Council Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007 relating to the determination of the export price of Severstal-Metiz, and in view of the fact that in that regulation a change for the purpose of Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation was not expressly proved which would justify the application of a new methodology, the Commission ought to have applied the method for determining the export price which was used in the context of the original investigation, in the present case in accordance with Article 2(8) of the Basic Regulation?










3.


Taking into consideration the replies to the first and second questions: Was that part of Council Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007 which concerns the determination and imposition of individual anti-dumping measures in relation to imports of steel ropes and cables manufactured by Severstal-Metiz adopted contrary to Article 11(9) and (10) in conjunction with Article 2(8) of the Basic Regulation or on an invalid legal basis and, as such, is Council Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007 to be regarded as invalid in that part?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007 of 30 October 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the Russian Federation, and repealing the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in Thailand and Turkey (OJ 2007 L 285, p. 1).