Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 July 2008.#Huvis Corp. v Council of the European Union.#Dumping - Imports of polyester staple fibres from Korea - Regulation terminating an interim review - Application of a different methodology to that used in the initial investigation - Requirement of a change in circumstances - Adjustment claimed for credit costs - Credit periods - Burden of proof - Principle of sound administration - Article 2(10)(b) and (g) and Article 11(9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96.#Case T-221/05.

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for the annulment of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 of 10 March 2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China and Saudi Arabia, amending Regulation (EC) No 2852/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the Republic of Korea and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of such imports originating in Taiwan (OJ 2005 L 71, p. 1) and, second, for a declaration under Article 241 EC that the provisions of 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) are inapplicable to the extent to which they support the disputed conclusions contained in Regulation No 428/2005.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 of 10 March 2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China and Saudi Arabia, amending Regulation (EC) No 2852/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the Republic of Korea and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of such imports originating in Taiwan, to the extent to which the anti-dumping duty imposed on exports into the European Community of goods produced and exported by Huvis Corp. exceeds that which would be applicable if the ‘input’ method, used in the initial investigation, had been used to calculate the adjustment to the normal value for import charges and indirect taxes;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay 70% of the costs incurred by Huvis Corp.;

4. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.