CELEX: C2006/086/76
Language: en
Date: 2006-04-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-45/06: Action brought on  13 February 2006  — Reliance Industries v Council and Commission

8.4.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 86/38
            
         Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Reliance Industries v Council and Commission
   (Case T-45/06)
   (2006/C 86/76)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Reliance Industries Ltd (Bombay, India) [represented by: I. MacVay, S. Ahmed, Solicitors]
   
      Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the Commission's decisions, dated 1 December 2005, giving notice of an expiry review of the countervailing measures applicable to imports of certain bottle grade polyethylene terephthalate (‘PET’) originating in, inter alia, India, and of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain PET originating in India, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand and a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain PET originating in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (1);
            
         
               —
            
            
               if the Court considers it to be necessary or appropriate, annul Council Regulation (EC) No. 2603/2000, Council Regulation (EC) No. 2604/2000 and Commission Decision No. 2000/745/EC, in so far as they may purport to extend to the applicant in the period after 1 December 2005; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               if, but only if, and only to the extent that the Court may find, contrary to the applicant's case, that they differ in their true construction from the terms of Article 11.3 of the World Trade Organisation (‘WTO’) Dumping Agreement and/or Article 21.3 of the WTO Anti-Subsidies Agreement, annul Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 384/96 (‘the basic anti-dumping regulation’) and Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2026/97 (‘the basic anti-subsidy regulation’);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order that the defendants meet the applicant's costs of these proceedings.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the two contested decisions the Commission decided to initiate an expiry review with regard to Council Regulation No. 2603/2000 of 27 November 2000 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain PET originating in India, Malaysia and Thailand and terminating the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of certain PET originating in Indonesia, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (2) and Council Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 of 27 November 2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain PET originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand (3), as well as Commission Decision No. 2000/745/EC accepting undertakings offered in connection with the above anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings (4). By virtue of Articles 11(2) of the basic anti-dumping regulation and 18(1) of the basic anti-subsidy regulation, the effect of these notices of initiation, if given in time, would be that the relevant measures remain in force pending the outcome of the review.
   In support of its application the applicant submits that there has been no valid initiation of an expiry review so that the measures and undertaking at issue expired, in accordance with their terms, on 1 December 2005. The applicant argues that the notices were published on the same day as that on which the measures expired (1 December) and that, therefore, an expiry review was not initiated before the date of expiry, as required by WTO rules. In this respect, the applicant considers that the basic regulations must be interpreted in accordance with WTO agreements and that, in any case, any ambiguity in the basic regulations must be resolved in its favour, in accordance with general principles of Community law. The applicant further contends that if the basic regulations could not be interpreted in the manner it suggests, then those provisions would themselves be contrary to WTO rules and therefore invalid to this extent.
   
      (1)  OJ C 304, 1.12.2005 p. 4 and p. 9
   
      (2)  OJ L 301, 30.11.2000 p. 1
   
   
      (3)  OJ L 301, 30.11.2000 p. 21
   
   
      (4)  OJ L 301, 30.11.2000 p. 88