CELEX: C2000/316/63
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-226/00: Action brought on 28 August 2000 by Nan Ya Plastics Corporation against the Council of the European Union

4.11.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 316/33
European Communities on 25 August 2000 by Archer Daniels                 Action brought on 28 August 2000 by Nan Ya Plastics
Midland Company and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients                    Corporation against the Council of the European Union
Limited, represented by Lynda Martin Alegi and Edward
William Batchelor of Baker and McKenzie, London.                                                 (Case T-226/00)
                                                                                                 (2000/C 316/63)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 7 June                                (Language of the case: English)
       2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of
       the EEC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case          An action against the Council of the European Union was
       COMP/36.545/F3-Amino Acids) insofar as it pertains to             brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
       ADM;                                                              Communities on 28 August 2000 by Nan Ya Plastics Corpor-
                                                                         ation, represented by Philippe De Baere, of Van Bael & Bellis,
                                                                         Brussels.
—      in the alternative, the modification of Article 2 of the
       decision as it pertains to ADM, so as to annul or
       substantially reduce the fine imposed on ADM therein;             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EC)
—      order the Commission to pay all the costs of the                        No 978/2000 to the extent that they affect the applicant;
       proceedings; and                                                        and
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
—      order the Commission to reimburse ADM for any
       expenses incurred in providing security for payment of
       the fine.                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The contested measure in the present case is Council Regu-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          lation (EC) No 978/2000 imposing a definitive countervailing
                                                                         duty on imports of polyester originating in Australia, Indonesia
                                                                         and Taiwan and collecting definitively the provisional duty
                                                                         imposed (1).
The grounds and main arguments are similar to those invoked
in cases T-220/00 et T-223/00 Cheil Jedang Corporation/Com-
mission and T-223/00 Kyowa Hakko Kogyo and Kyowa Hakko                   The product concerned is synthetic staple fibres of polyester,
Europe/Commission.                                                       not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning,
                                                                         which is currently classified under CN code 5503 20 00.
It is submitted, in particular, that the Commission:                     The applicant, a company incorporated in Taiwan producing
                                                                         a wide range of artificial fibres, plastics and petrochemical
                                                                         intermediates, puts forward the following submissions:
—      Has incorrectly characterised the infringement as a very
       serious infringement likely to jeopardise the proper              —     The Council unlawfully countervailed the import duty
       functioning of the single market.                                       exemption for raw materials since this scheme could
                                                                               not lawfully have been included in the scope of the
                                                                               investigation.
—      Failed to take into account the lack of actual impact of
       the Cartel in assessing the fine.                                 —     The Council’s conclusion that the benefits obtained under
                                                                               the tax credit for investment in important undertakings,
—      Improperly assesses that the applicants implemented the                 the import-duty exemption for machinery and anti-
       agreements.                                                             pollution equipment, the import-duty exemptions for raw
                                                                               materials and the tax credit for purchase of automation
                                                                               equipment are countervalable is based on an erroneus
—      Improperly assesses the applicants to be sector leaders                 application of Article 3(2) of the basic anti-subsidy regu-
       and increased the fine excessively in respect of leadership.            lation and is made in the absence of positive evidence
                                                                               and thereby infringes Articles 3(1), 4(1) and 3(5) of that
                                                                               regulation.
—      Has infringed essential procedural requirements.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 113 of 12.5.2000, p. 1.