Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community
Grade B
mapped from publisher markup. A grade says how a document's structure was obtained, not how reliable the law is.
Address https://gelex.eu/eli/EU/regulation/2012/1168@2012-12-12/en
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,
Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure,
Whereas:
(1) In Case C-249/10 P, the Court of Justice ruled that the sampling technique provided for in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 may not be applied for the purposes of determining claims for market economy treatment pursuant to subparagraph (c) of Article 2(7) of that Regulation.
(2) The ruling by the Court of Justice would require that the Commission examine all applications for market economy treatment filed by cooperating exporting producers who are not part of the sample, irrespective of whether the number of cooperating producers is large. However, such a practice would impose a disproportionate administrative burden on the investigating authorities of the Union. Therefore, it is appropriate to amend Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.
(3) Moreover, the use of the sampling technique provided for in Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 for the purposes of determining claims for market economy treatment pursuant to subparagraph (c) of Article 2(7) of that Regulation is allowed under the rules of the World Trade Organisation. For example, the panel of the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation in the dispute DS405 European Union — Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Footwear from China (report adopted on 22 February 2012) found that China did not establish that the Union acted inconsistently with Articles 2.4 and 6.10.2 of the Anti-dumping Agreement, paragraph 15(a)(ii) of China’s Accession Protocol, and paragraph 151(e) and (f) of China’s Accession Working Party Report, by failing to examine the market economy treatment applications of the cooperating Chinese exporting producers that were not part of the sample for the original investigation.
(4) Therefore, taking into account that background and for reasons of legal certainty, it is considered appropriate to introduce a provision clarifying that the decision to limit the investigation to a reasonable number of parties by using samples on the basis of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 also applies to the parties subject to an examination in accordance with subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Article 2(7) of that Regulation. Consequently, it is also appropriate to clarify that a determination under subparagraph (c) of Article 2(7) of that Regulation should not be made for exporting producers that are not part of the sample, unless such producers request and obtain individual examination in accordance with Article 17(3) thereof.
(5) Furthermore, it is considered appropriate to clarify that the anti-dumping duty to be applied to imports from exporters or producers which have made themselves known in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 but were not included in the examination is not to exceed the weighted average margin of dumping established for the parties in the sample, irrespective of whether the normal value established for such parties was determined on the basis of Article 2(1) to (6) or subparagraph (a) of Article 2(7) of that Regulation.
(6) Finally, the three-month time limit by which a determination pursuant to subparagraph (c) of Article 2(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 should be made has proved impracticable, in particular in proceedings where sampling in accordance with Article 17 of that Regulation is applied. It is therefore considered appropriate to extend that time limit.
(7) In the interests of legal certainty and the principle of sound administration, it is necessary to provide that the amendments to Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 provided for in this Regulation are to apply as soon as possible to all new and to all pending investigations.
(8) Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 is hereby amended as follows:
(1) Article 2(7) is amended as follows:
(a) in the penultimate sentence of subparagraph (c) the words shall be made within three months of the initiation of the investigation are replaced by the words shall normally be made within seven months of, but in any event not later than eight months after, the initiation of the investigation;
(b) the following subparagraph is added:
(d) When the Commission has limited its examination in accordance with Article 17, a determination pursuant to subparagraphs (b) and (c) of this paragraph shall be limited to the parties included in the examination and any producer that receives individual treatment pursuant to Article 17(3).;
(2) in Article 9(6), the first sentence is replaced by the following: When the Commission has limited its examination in accordance with Article 17, any anti-dumping duty applied to imports from exporters or producers which have made themselves known in accordance with Article 17 but were not included in the examination shall not exceed the weighted average margin of dumping established with respect to the parties in the sample, irrespective of whether the normal value for such parties is determined on the basis of Article 2(1) to (6) or subparagraph (a) of Article 2(7)..
Article 2
This Regulation shall apply to all new and to all pending investigations as from 15 December 2012.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Strasbourg, 12 December 2012. For the European Parliament The President M. Schulz For the Council The President A. D. Mavroyiannis
Versions
Cited by
- Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (codification) Regulation · Grade B
Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51) Regulation (EU) No 765/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 237, 3.9.2012, p. 1) Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 344, 14.12.2012, p. 1) Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 18, 21.1.2014, p. 1) Only point 22 of the Annex
- Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People's Republic of China Regulation · Grade B
Due to the large number of MET claims received and the need at that time to carry out numerous verification visits to examine those claims, the MET determination was not made within seven months. However the determinations were made within eight months from the date of the initiation as required by the basic Regulation, as amended by Regulation 1168/2012. The allegation that any right in this respect was removed with retroactive effect is not justified as explained above.
- Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People's Republic of China Regulation · Grade B
The arguments concerning the severity of the accounting records are essentially identical to those made during the MET investigation and were rebutted by the Commission prior to the MET determination. Nevertheless, with regard to the argument that the refusal to grant MET breaches the principle of proportionality it should be recalled that the MET criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation are cumulative and, unless they are all fulfilled, MET cannot legally be granted. In addition, since the burden of proof is on the company requesting MET and the company failed to demonstr
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 of 13 September 2016 Re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Ltd, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd, Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 Regulation · Grade B
FESI claimed that the Commission should not have applied two different legal regimes, i.e. the basic Regulation prior to its amendment for the assessment of the exporting producers' IT claims on the one hand, and the current basic Regulation on the other hand, that incorporated the amendments by Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council introducing Comitology procedures in the area of, inter alia, trade defence and thus delegating the decision making to the Commission.
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 of 13 September 2016 Re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Ltd, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd, Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 Regulation · Grade B
Second, Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 (the so-called Brosmann amendment dealing with MET) provided in its Article 2 that this Regulation shall apply to all new and to all pending investigations as from 15 December 2012. Therefore, if the Commission had adopted a strict approach, it would not even have been necessary to assess the MET claims of the non-sampled companies any more, as they had lost the right to an MET assessment on 15 December 2012. However, the Commission considers that such treatment would be difficult to reconcile with its obligation to implement the judgments. Regulation (EU)
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 of 13 September 2016 Re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Ltd, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd, Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 Regulation · Grade B
The alleged lack of adequate reasoning concerned in particular (i) the lack of legal basis for the re-opening of the investigation and the lack of publishing a relevant notice announcing such re-opening; (ii) the only partial implementation of the judgment of the General Court by merely assessing MET/IT claims of those exporting producers where reimbursement claims had been filed by the importers; (iii) the derogation from the principle of non-retroactivity of anti-dumping duties; (iv) the application of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment on 6 September 2012 for the assessment of the
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 of 18 August 2016 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co. Ltd, Buildyet Shoes Mfg., DongGuan Elegant Top Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Stella Footwear Co. Ltd, Dongguan Taiway Sports Goods Limited, Foshan City Nanhai Qun Rui Footwear Co., Jianle Footwear Industrial, Sihui Kingo Rubber Shoes Factory, Synfort Shoes Co. Ltd, Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co. Ltd, Wei Hao Shoe Co. Ltd, Wei Hua Shoe Co. Ltd, Win Profile Industries Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 Regulation · Grade B
Several interested parties claimed that the Commission should not have applied two different legal regimes, i.e. the basic Regulation prior to its amendment for the assessment of the exporting producers' IT claims on the one hand and the current basic Regulation on the other hand that incorporated the amendments by Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council introducing Comitology procedures in the area of, inter alia, trade defence and thus delegating the decision making to the Commission.
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 of 18 August 2016 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co. Ltd, Buildyet Shoes Mfg., DongGuan Elegant Top Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Stella Footwear Co. Ltd, Dongguan Taiway Sports Goods Limited, Foshan City Nanhai Qun Rui Footwear Co., Jianle Footwear Industrial, Sihui Kingo Rubber Shoes Factory, Synfort Shoes Co. Ltd, Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co. Ltd, Wei Hao Shoe Co. Ltd, Wei Hua Shoe Co. Ltd, Win Profile Industries Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 Regulation · Grade B
Second, Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 (the so-called Brosmann amendment dealing with MET) provided in its Article 2 that this Regulation shall apply to all new and to all pending investigations as from 15 December 2012. Therefore, if the Commission had adopted a strict approach, it would not even have been necessary to assess the MET claims of the non-sampled companies any more, as they had lost the right to an MET assessment on 15 December 2012. However, the Commission considers that such treatment would be difficult to reconcile with its obligation to implement the judgments. Regulation (EU)
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 of 18 August 2016 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co. Ltd, Buildyet Shoes Mfg., DongGuan Elegant Top Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Stella Footwear Co. Ltd, Dongguan Taiway Sports Goods Limited, Foshan City Nanhai Qun Rui Footwear Co., Jianle Footwear Industrial, Sihui Kingo Rubber Shoes Factory, Synfort Shoes Co. Ltd, Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co. Ltd, Wei Hao Shoe Co. Ltd, Wei Hua Shoe Co. Ltd, Win Profile Industries Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 Regulation · Grade B
The lack of adequate reasoning concerned in particular (i) the lack of legal basis for the reopening of the investigation and the lack of publishing a relevant notice announcing such reopening; (ii) the only partial implementation of the judgment of the General Court by merely assessing MET/IT claims of those exporting producers where reimbursement claims had been filed by the importers; (iii) the derogation from the principle of non-retroactivity of anti-dumping duties; (iv) the application of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment on 6 September 2012 for the assessment of the exporting
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731 of 28 September 2016 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by General Footwear Ltd (China), Diamond Vietnam Co. Ltd and Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co. Ltd and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 Regulation · Grade B
FESI claimed that the Commission should not have applied two different legal regimes, i.e. the basic Regulation prior to its amendment for the assessment of the exporting producers' IT claims on the one hand, and the current basic Regulation on the other hand, that incorporated the amendments by Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council introducing Comitology procedures in the area of, inter alia, trade defence and thus delegating the decision making to the Commission.
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731 of 28 September 2016 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by General Footwear Ltd (China), Diamond Vietnam Co. Ltd and Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co. Ltd and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 Regulation · Grade B
Second, Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 (the so-called Brosmann amendment dealing with MET) provided in its Article 2 that this Regulation shall apply to all new and to all pending investigations as from 15 December 2012. Therefore, if the Commission had adopted a strict approach, it would not even have been necessary to assess the MET claims of the non-sampled companies any more, as they had lost the right to an MET assessment on 15 December 2012. However, the Commission considers that such treatment would be difficult to reconcile with its obligation to implement the judgments. Regulation (EU)
- Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2013 of 22 April 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 Regulation · Grade B
Finally, Noblelift argued that the investigation should have been terminated due to violation of the three-month deadline for the MET determination as specified in Article 2(7)(c) the basic Regulation. In this respect, reference is made to an amendment introduced by Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community and the retroactive effects thereof. Further, it is noted that the MET determination was made more tha