CELEX: 52012PC0270
Language: en
Date: 2012-06-08
Title: Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community

|
			
		
		
		52012PC0270
		
			Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community /* COM/2012/0270 final - 2012/0145 (COD) */
			
				
		
		
			
			   	EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
1.           CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
On 2 February
2012, the European Court of Justice in case C-249/10[1] P - Brosmann
and others v. Council ('Brosmann') annulled 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 in so far as it relates to the applicants. In its judgement, the
Court of Justice ruled that the sampling technique laid down in Article 17 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 may not be applied for the purposes of the
determination of claims of individual market economy treatment made under
Article 2(7)(c). In its judgment, the Court found that under Article 2(7)(c) the
cooperating producers, which are not part of the sample, are entitled to have
their claim of market economy treatment examined, regardless of whether an
individual dumping margin was to be calculated for those companies outside the
sample. The European Court of Justice also pointed out that the determination
under Article 2(7)(c) is to be made within three months after the initiation of
the investigation. 
The ruling by the European Court of Justice
on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 would require that
the Commission examine all applications for market economy treatment filed by
cooperating producers who are not part of the sample, irrespective of the
number of producers. However, such a practice would impose a disproportionate
administrative burden on the investigating authorities of the Union. Therefore,
it is appropriate to amend Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, in particular with
regard to the time limit of three months for the Commission to decide on the
applications for market economy treatment.
It should also be noted that the use of the
sampling technique provided for in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No
1225/2009 for the purposes of the determination of claims of market economy
treatment to be made under Article 2(7)(c) of that Regulation is not in breach
of the obligations of the Union under the World Trade Organisation rules. For
example, the panel of the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade
Organisation in dispute DS405 (European Union — Anti-Dumping measures on
Certain Footwear from China, report adopted on 22 February 2012) found that
China did not establish that the European Union acted inconsistently with
Articles 2.4 and 6.10.2 of the Anti-dumping Agreement, Paragraph
15(a)(ii) of China's Accession Protocol, and Paragraphs 151(e) and (f) of
China's Accession Working Party Report, by failing to examine the market
economy treatment applications of the cooperating Chinese producers that are
not part of the sample for the limited original investigation. 
Therefore, taking into account this
background and for reasons of legal certainty, it is considered appropriate to
introduce a provision clarifying that the decision to limit the investigation
to a reasonable number of producers by using samples on the basis of Article 17
of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 also applies to the parties subject to
a market economy treatment examination, in accordance with Article 2(7)(b) and
(c). Consequently, it is also appropriate to clarify that a determination under
Article 2(7)(c) should not be made for producers that are not part of the
sample unless such producers request and obtain individual examination in
accordance with Article 17(3).
Furthermore, it is considered appropriate
to clarify that the anti-dumping duty to be applied to imports from producers,
which have made themselves known in accordance with Article 17 but were not
included in the examination, shall not exceed the weighted average margin of
dumping established for the parties in the sample, irrespective of whether the
normal value established for such parties was determined on the basis of
Articles 2(1) to 2(6) or Article 2(7)(a).
Lastly, the three month time limit by which a determination pursuant
to Article 2(7)(c) should be made, has proved impracticable in many anti-dumping
proceedings, in particular where sampling is applied in accordance with Article
17. In its proposal to amend certain regulations in
order to ensure consistency with the provisions introduced by the Treaty of
Lisbon ('Trade Omnibus I')[2], the
Commission included an amendment to extend the time
limit in Article 2(7)(c) of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 to six months (point 1 of Heading 24 in Annex to
'Trade Omnibus I'). However, in view of the Brosmann ruling on such time
limit (which intervened one year after the Omnibus I proposal was made), it is
considered that an extension of the time limit to six months is no longer
adequate for reasons of legal certainty. Instead, it is considered more appropriate
to remove this time limit from Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. Therefore
the Commission should discontinue its efforts to amend the time limit in Article
2(7)(c) in the context of the Trade Omnibus I proposal, and should inform the
Council and the Parliament of its intentions. 
In the interest of legal certainty and the
principle of sound administration, it is necessary to provide that these
amendments should apply as soon as possible to all new and pending
investigations.
2.           RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS
WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
Not applicable.
3.           LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE
PROPOSAL
·                        
Legal basis
The legal basis for this proposal is
Article 207(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in
accordance to which the European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of
regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt
the measures defining the framework for implementing the common commercial
policy. 
This proposal amends Council Regulation
(EC) No 1225/2009 which was based on the equivalent provision of the Treaty
establishing the European Community, i.e. Article 133.
·                        
Subsidiarity Principle
Pursuant to
Article 3(1)(e) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the
proposal falls under exclusive competence of the Union. The subsidiarity
principle therefore does not apply.
·                        
Proportionality Principle
The proposal complies with the
proportionality principle.
·                        
Choice of instruments
Proposed instrument: Regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council.
Other means would not be adequate for the
following reason: a Regulation must be amended by a Regulation.
4.           BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 
Not applicable.
5.           OPTIONAL ELEMENTS 
Not applicable.
2012/0145 (COD)
Proposal for a
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL
amending Council Regulation (EC) No
1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of
the European Community
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the
European Commission,
After transmission of the draft legislative
act to the national Parliaments,
Acting in accordance with the ordinary
legislative procedure,
Whereas:
(1)       In Case C‑249/10 P[3], the European Court of Justice
ruled that the sampling technique provided for in Article 17 of Council Regulation
(EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from
countries not members of the European Community[4]
may not be applied for the purposes of the determination of claims of market
economy treatment to be made under Article 2(7)(c) of that Regulation. 
(2)       The ruling by the European
Court of Justice would require that the Commission examine all applications for
market economy treatment filed by cooperating exporting producers who are not
part of the sample, irrespective of whether the number of cooperating producers
is large. However, such a practice would impose a disproportionate
administrative burden on the investigating authorities of the Union. Therefore,
is it appropriate to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.
(3)       Moreover, the use of the
sampling technique provided for in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No
1225/2009 for the purposes of the determination of claims of market economy
treatment to be made under Article 2(7)(c) of that Regulation is allowed under the
rules of World Trade Organisation. For example, the panel of the Dispute
Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation in dispute DS405 (European
Union — Anti-Dumping measures on Certain Footwear from China, report
adopted on 22 February 2012) found that China did not establish that the
European Union acted inconsistently with Articles 2.4 and 6.10.2 of the
Anti-dumping Agreement, Paragraph 15(a)(ii) of China's Accession Protocol,
and Paragraphs 151(e) and (f) of China's Accession Working Party Report, by
failing to examine the market economy treatment applications of the cooperating
Chinese exporting producers that are not part of the sample for the original
investigation. 
(4)       Therefore, taking into
account this background and for reasons of legal certainty, it is considered
appropriate to introduce a provision clarifying that the decision to limit the
investigation to a reasonable number of parties by using samples on the basis
of Article 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 also applies to the
parties subject to an examination in accordance with Article 2(7)(b) and (c).
Consequently, it is also appropriate to clarify that a determination under
Article 2(7)(c) should not be made for exporting producers that are not part of
the sample, unless such producers request and obtain individual examination in
accordance with Article 17(3).
(5)       Furthermore, it is
considered appropriate to clarify that the anti-dumping duty to be applied to
imports from exporters or producers which have made themselves known in
accordance with Article 17, but were not included in the examination shall not
exceed the weighted average margin of dumping established for the parties in
the sample, irrespective of whether the normal value established for such
parties was determined on the basis of Articles 2(1) to 2(6) or Article
2(7)(a).
(6)       Lastly, the three month time-limit
by which a determination pursuant to Article 2(7)(c) should be made has proved
impracticable, in particular in proceedings where sampling in accordance with
Article 17 is applied. It is therefore considered appropriate to remove this
time-limit.
(7)       In the interests of legal
certainty and the principle of sound administration, it is necessary to provide
that these amendments should apply as soon as possible to all new and pending
investigations.
(8)       Council Regulation (EC) No
1225/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 is
amended as follows:
(1) Article 2(7) is amended as follows:
(a) The penultimate sentence of subparagraph
(c) is modified as follows:
The terms "within three months of the
initiation of the investigation" are deleted.
(b) The following subparagraph (d) is added:
"(d) When the Commission has limited its
examination in accordance with Article 17, a determination pursuant to subparagraphs
(b) and (c) shall be limited to the parties included in the examination and any
producer that receives individual treatment pursuant to Article 17(3)".
(2) In Article 9(6), the first sentence is
replaced by the following:
"When the Commission has limited its
examination in accordance with Article 17, any anti-dumping duty applied to
imports from exporters or producers which have made themselves known in
accordance with Article 17 but were not included in the examination shall not
exceed the weighted average margin of dumping established with respect to the
parties in the sample, irrespective of whether the normal value for such
parties is determined on the basis of Articles 2(1) to 2(6) or Article
2(7)(a)."
Article 2 
This Regulation shall apply to all new and pending
investigations at the time of entry into force of this Regulation. 
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on
the first day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of
the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its
entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 
For the European Parliament                       For
the Council
The President                                                 The
President
[1]               Case C-249/10 P – Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v
Council, Judgement of 2 February 2012 (not yet published in the ECR). 
[2]               Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament
and of the Council amending certain regulations relating to the common
commercial policy as regards the procedures for the adoption of certain
measures (COM(2011) 82 final).
[3]               Case C-249/10 P - Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v
Council, Judgment of 2 February 2012.
[4]               OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.