(Judgment) 1 Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Dumping margin – Determination of the normal value – Imports from non-market economy countries – Choice of a reference country – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (Council Regulation No 2176/84, Art. 2(5)(a))
2 Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Dumping margin – Determination of the normal value – Imports from non-market economy countries – Reference to the price in a market-economy non-member country – Determination in an appropriate and not unreasonable manner – Criteria to be used in the choice of a reference country (Council Regulations No 2176/84, Art. 2(5)(a), and No 1531/88)
3 Although the choice, under Article 2(5)(a) of the basic anti-dumping regulation (No 2176), of the reference country to be used in order to determine the normal value of products from non-market economy countries falls within the discretion enjoyed by the institutions when analysing complex economic situations, the exercise of that discretion is not exempt from judicial review by the Court.
In reviewing the exercise of that discretion, the Court is to verify whether the relevant procedural rules have been complied with, whether the facts on which the choice is based have been accurately stated and whether there has been a manifest error of appraisal or a misuse of powers. As regards the choice of reference country, that means that the Court is to verify whether the institutions neglected to take account of essential factors for the purpose of establishing the appropriateness of the country chosen and whether the information contained in the documents in the case was considered with all the care required for the view to be taken that the normal value was determined in an appropriate and not unreasonable manner.
4 It is possible to conclude that the normal value of products originating in a non-market economy country was determined by reference to the price in a market-economy non-member country `in an appropriate and not unreasonable manner’ within the meaning of Article 2(5)(a) of Regulation No 2176/84 where, first, the institutions did not receive any alternative proposal to their choice of reference country in circumstances where that country had already been chosen in an earlier proceeding concerning the same product, and where the traders concerned would not have failed, had they considered it necessary, to suggest a more appropriate country, and, secondly, those institutions have convincingly explained their reasons for not opting for other possible reference countries, without the applicant adducing any evidence capable of casting doubt on their analysis. For that reason, Regulation No 1531/88 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of potassium permanganate originating in the People’s Republic of China and definitively collecting the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed on those imports is to be held valid.
Citations:
C-26/96, [1997] EUECJ C-26/96
Links:
Jurisdiction:
European
Commercial, Customs and Excise
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161769
