CELEX: C2004/262/31
Language: en
Date: 2004-10-23 00:00:00
Title: Case C-351/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, by order of that court dated 22 July 2004, in the case of Ikea Wholesale Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

23.10.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 262/18
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, by order of that court dated 22 July 2004, in the case of Ikea Wholesale Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise
   (Case C-351/04)
   (2004/C 262/31)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by an order of the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, dated 22 July 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 16 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ikea Wholesale Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the following questions:
   
               i)
            
            
               in the light of the findings of the Panel of the DSB of the WTO in its report dated the 30th October 2000, paragraph 7.2(g) and (h), WT/DS1412/R and of the Appellate Body of the DSB of the WTO in its decision dated the 1st March 2002, paragraphs 86 to 87, WT/DS1141/AB/R, is all or part of Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 of the 28 November 1997 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bedlinen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan (1) incompatible with Community law, in that it:
               
                           a)
                        
                        
                           applied a wrong methodology in calculating the amounts for selling, general and administrative expenses and for profits, contrary to Article 2(6)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of the 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the Community (2), as amended, and Article 2.2.2(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
                        
                     
                           b)
                        
                        
                           applied a wrong methodology incorporating the practice of ‘zeroing’ in determining the existence of dumping margins when comparing normal value with export price, contrary to Article 2(11) of Regulation 384/96 and Article 2.4.2. of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and/or
                        
                     
                           c)
                        
                        
                           failed to evaluate all the relevant injury factors having a bearing on the state of the Community industry and erred in determining the injury to the Community industry by relying on evidence obtained from companies outside the Community industry, contrary to Article 3(5) of Regulation 384/96 and Article 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement?
                        
                     
         
               ii)
            
            
               are any or all of:
               
                           a)
                        
                        
                           Council Regulation No 1644/2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bedlinen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan and suspending its application with regard to imports originating in India (3);
                        
                     
                           b)
                        
                        
                           Council Regulation 160/2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bedlinen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan and terminating the proceeding with regard to imports originating in Pakistan (4); and/or
                        
                     
                           c)
                        
                        
                           Council Regulation (EC) No 696/2002 confirming the definitive antidumping duty imposed on imports of cotton-type bedlinen originating in India by Regulation (EC) No 2398/97, as amended and suspended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1644/2001 (5);
                        
                     incompatible with Community law (including Articles 1, 7(1) and 9(4) of Regulation 384/96 read in the light of Articles 1, 7.1 and 9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement) insofar as (i) they were adopted on the basis of a reassessment of information which was collected during the original investigation period, which reassessment showed that no dumping or lower levels of dumping had taken place during the original investigation period; but (ii) the above regulations fail to provide for reimbursement of sums already paid pursuant to Regulation 2398/97?
            
         
               iii)
            
            
               are Regulations 1664/2001, 160/2002 and 696/2002 further incompatible with Articles 7(2) and 9(4) of Regulation 384/96 and the principle of proportionality, in that they allow for a level of anti-dumping duty, for the period prior to their entry into force, that is not strictly proportionate to the amount of dumping or injury the duty is intended to offset?
            
         
               iv)
            
            
               do the answers to the above questions differ in respect of exports originating in India as against Pakistan, given:
               
                           a)
                        
                        
                           the procedures followed before DSB of the WTO; and/or
                        
                     
                           b)
                        
                        
                           the findings of the Commission recorded in Regulations 1664/2001, 160/2002 and 696/2002?
                        
                     
         
               v)
            
            
               in the light of the answers to the above questions:
               
                           a)
                        
                        
                           must a national customs authority repay all or part of the anti-dumping duties which it has collected pursuant to Regulation 2398/97; and
                        
                     
                           b)
                        
                        
                           if so, to whom and under what conditions should repayment be made?
                        
                     
         
      (1)  OJ L 332, 4.12.1997, p.1.
   
      (2)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p.1.
   
      (3)  OJ L 219, 14.8.2001, p.1.
   
      (4)  OJ L 26, 30.1.2002, p. 1.
   
      (5)  OJ L 109, 25.4.2002, p. 1.