CELEX: 62008TN0536
Language: en
Date: 2008-12-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-536/08: Action brought on 9 December 2008 — Huvis v Council

7.3.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 55/28
            
         Action brought on 9 December 2008 — Huvis v Council
   (Case T-536/08)
   (2009/C 55/53)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Huvis Corporation (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni, R. Antonini, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               annul Council Regulation (EC) No 893/2008 of 10 September 2008, maintaining the anti-dumping duties on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in Belarus, the People's Republic of China, Saudi Arabia and Korea following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (1), insofar as it does not repeal the anti-dumping duty applicable to the applicant as of 29 December 2006, that is, the date on which imports of polyester staple fibres originating in Taiwan and Malaysia were subjected to provisional anti-dumping duties, which the Commission decided not to collect in its Decision No 2007/430/EC of 19 June 2007 (2);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application the applicant, a Korean-based company, seeks partial annulment of Council Regulation No 893/2008 insofar as it does not repeal the anti-dumping duty applicable to the polyester staple fibres (PSF) manufactured by the applicant and originating in Korea as of 29 December 2006. The applicant submits that the same treatment as was applied in Commission Decision No 2007/430/EC to the PSF originating in Taiwan and Malaysia should be applied to the PSF originating in Korea. Therefore, in the applicant's view, the anti-dumping duty should be repealed as of the same date with respect to the PSF originating in Korea.
   The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of its claims.
   The applicant submits that by maintaining anti-dumping measures with respect to imports of PSF originating in Korea while the imports of PSF from Malaysia and Taiwan were not subjected to anti-dumping measures the European institutions violated the fundamental principle of non-discrimination. The applicant contests the three arguments put forward by the Council to justify different treatment. The fact that the complaint in the case of PSF originating in Malaysia and Taiwan was withdrawn and no definitive finding was made by the Council cannot, in the applicant's opinion, justify the discriminatory treatment of the case of PSF originating in Korea. The applicant contests as well that the fact that the Community interest test applied in the case of PSF originating in Malaysia and Taiwan was different from the Community test applied in the case of PSF originating in Korea could justify the discriminatory treatment of the latter. The applicant further submits that, contrary to Council's findings, the fact that different conclusions regarding Community interest were reached in the investigations concerning Malaysia and Taiwan, on the one hand, and Korea, on the other hand, could neither justify the discriminatory treatment.
   The applicant further claims that the decision that termination of anti-dumping measures on imports of PSF manufactured and exported by the applicant is not justified on Community interest grounds is vitiated by fundamental contradictions and incoherencies.
   
      (1)  OJ L 247, p. 1.
   
      (2)  2007/430/EC: Commission Decision of 19 June 2007 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters (PSF) originating in Malaysia and Taiwan and releasing the amounts secured by way of the provisional duties imposed (OJ L 160, p. 30).