Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/53

(Case T-150/09)

2009/C 141/109

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

—annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China; and

—order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant requests the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009, of 26 January 2009, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) on the basis of an alleged infringement of Articles 2(7) (b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2) and on the basis of a manifest error of assessment of the facts in rejecting applicant’s Market Economy Treatment (“MET”) claim.

The applicant claims first, that the Commission failed to take a decision on MET within the statutory deadline pursuant to Article 2(7) (c) second paragraph of Regulation (EC) No 384/96. It is submitted that by making a MET decision after if had received all the information requested in the anti-dumping questionnaire, the Commission violated its obligation provided in the aforementioned provision intended to ensure that the question as to whether a producer meets the MET criteria is not decided on the basis of its effect on the calculation of the dumping margin.

Second, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the applicant’s cost of the major input, steel wire rod, did not substantially reflect market values pursuant to Article 2(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96. It is submitted that this manifest error of assessment is attributable to the Commission and the Council’s breach of their obligations of due diligence and proper administration by not carefully and impartially examining all of the relevant evidence before them.

Finally, the applicant contends that the Council’s interpretation of Article 2 (7) (b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 constitutes an impermissible interpretation and thus an infringement of the said provision. The applicant, moreover, claims that the Council’s interpretation of Article 2 (7) (b) (c) not only disregards the fact that the MET assessment needs to be carried out at the company-specific level, but the Council’s interpretation also imposes an unreasonable burden of proof. In addition, the Council’s interpretation, according to the applicant, renders the possibility to adjust costs of production that are distorted by a particular market situation pursuant to Article 2 (5) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 redundant and as such conflicts with the obligation to interpret a provision of Community law in accordance with its context and its aim.

* * *

(1) OJ 2009, L 29, p. 1

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996, L 56, p. 1)