CELEX: C2007/042/61
Language: en
Date: 2007-02-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-401/06: Action brought on 28 December 2006 — Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council

24.2.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 42/34
            
         Action brought on 28 December 2006 — Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council
   (Case T-401/06)
   (2007/C 42/61)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Applicants: Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd (Kowloon, Hong Kong), Seasonable Footwear (Zhong Shan) Ltd (Banfu, China), Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd (Guangzhou, China), Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd (Kowloon, Hong Kong) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, A. Willems, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 to the extent it imposes anti-dumping duties on exports by the applicants;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present application, the applicants are seeking annulment of the contested regulation to the extent that it imposes anti-dumping duties on their exports to the European Union. The application is based on the following grounds:
   
               —
            
            
               A breach of Articles 2(7)(b) and (9)(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports (the ‘Basic Regulation’), Article VI of the GATT, as well as principles of non-discrimination, nemo auditur and legitimate expectations, with regard to the failure of the Community institutions to examine each Market Economy Treatment (‘MET’) and Individual Treatment (‘IT’) request individually;
            
         
               —
            
            
               a violation of Articles 18 and 20 of the Basic Regulation, and a breach of the applicants' rights of defence with regard to the Community's Institutions' failure to inform the applicants of the treatment accorded to MET and IT requests;
            
         
               —
            
            
               a manifest error of assessment as well as a breach of Articles 5(4) of the Basic Regulation with regard to the evaluation of the standing of the Community producers in supporting the investigation, Article 1(4) of the Basic Regulation with regard to the definition of the product scope, Article 17 of the Basic Regulation and Article 253 EC with regard to the selection of the sample of exporting producers, Article 3(2) of the Basic Regulation and Article 253 EC with regard to the injury of determination, Article 3(2) of the Basic Regulation with regard to the assessment of the causal link between dumped imports and injury, and, finally, Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation in the calculation of the injury elimination level.