limite fr

CONSEIL DE
L'UNION EUROPÉENNE
Bruxelles, le 11 mars 2014
(Or. en)
B
PU
6704/14
Dossier interinstitutionnel:
2014/0044 (NLE)
C
LI
LIMITE
ANTIDUMPING 16
COMER 63
NOTE POINT "I/A"
du :
Groupe "Questions commerciales"
au :
Comité des représentants permanents/Conseil
No. prop. Cion. : 6703/14 ANTIDUMPING 15 COMER 62 + ADD 1
Objet :
Anti-dumping
Décision d'exécution du Conseil rejetant la proposition de règlement
d'exécution du Conseil réinstituant un droit antidumping définitif et portant
perception définitive du droit provisoire institué sur les importations de certaines
chaussures à dessus en cuir originaires de la République populaire de Chine
et produites par Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd,
Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd,
Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd et Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd
1.
Le 19 février 2014, la Commission a soumis une proposition de règlement d'exécution
du Conseil, qui est tenu de prendre une décision à cet égard dans les meilleurs délais.
2.
Le Service juridique du Conseil a rédigé une contribution au sujet de cette proposition
le 5 mars 2014 (doc. 7285/14).
3.
Les délégations ont été consultées sur cette proposition (voir CM 1868/14).
6704/14
Conseil UE
DG C 1
lle/ac
1
LIMITE FR
4.
Sept délégations se sont déclarées favorables à la proposition de la Commission, dix-sept
délégations (BE, CZ, DK, DE, EE, IE, CY, LV, LU, MT, NL, AT, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK)
s'y sont opposées et quatre délégations (BG, HR, HU, PT) se sont abstenues.
5.
Conformément à l'article 9 du règlement (CE) n° 1225/2009 du Conseil du 30 novembre 2009
relatif à la défense contre les importations qui font l'objet d'un dumping de la part de pays
non membres de la Communauté européenne 1, la proposition est adoptée par le Conseil
à moins que celui-ci ne décide, à la majorité simple, de la rejeter.
6.
Compte tenu de ce qui précède, la présidence a élaboré une décision d'exécution du Conseil
rejetant la proposition et indiquant les raisons qui ont motivé cette décision, conformément
à la jurisprudence applicable 2.
7.
Lors de la réunion du groupe "Questions commerciales" du 11 mars 2014, les délégations ont
examiné ce projet d'un point de vue technique (voir annexe) et confirmé leurs positions
respectives, mentionnées au point 4.
8.
Le Comité des représentants permanents est dès lors invité à recommander au Conseil
d'adopter, en point "A" de l'ordre du jour de sa session du 18 mars 2014, la décision
d'exécution rejetant la proposition, dont le texte sera mis au point par les juristes-linguistes
et figurera dans le document 7517/14 ANTIDUMPING 23 COMER 80.
___________________
1
2
JO L 343 du 22 décembre 2009, p. 51.
Arrêt rendu le 30 septembre 2003 par la CJE dans l'affaire C-76/01 P (Eurocoton).
6704/14
DG C 1
lle/ac
2
LIMITE FR
ANNEXE
DRAFT COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION
of ….
rejecting the proposal for a Council Implementing Regulation Re-imposing a definitive antidumping 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 Brosmann
Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd,
Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd and Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’),
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community 3 and in particular
Article 9 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission, after consulting the
Advisory Committee,
3
OJ L 343 of 22 December 2009, p. 51.
6704/14
ANNEXE
DG C 1
ACZ/sy
3
LIMITE FR
Whereas:
1.
On 5 October 2006 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 imposing 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
Vietnam 4 (the "contested Regulation"). Following an expiry review, the measures were
extended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009. 5 The measures expired
on 31 March 2011.
4
5
OJ L 275 of 6 October 2006, p. 1.
On 23 March 2006, the Commission had already adopted Regulation (EC) No 553/2006
imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of
leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam, OJ 2006 L 98/3.
Subsequently to the adoption of the contested Regulation, the measures were extended to
imports consigned from the Macao Special Administrative Region by Council Regulation
(EC) No 388/2008 extending the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation
(EC) No 1472/2006 on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the
People’s Republic of China to imports of the same product consigned from the Macao SAR,
whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, (OJ L 117 of 1 May 2008, p. 1).
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping
duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and
originating in the People's Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with
uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the
Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council
Regulation (EC) No 384/96, (OJ L 352 of 30 December 2009, p. 1).
6704/14
ANNEXE
DG C 1
ACZ/sy
4
LIMITE FR
2.
Certain exporting producers brought actions before the General Court for annulment of the
contested Regulation. The General Court dismissed these actions. 6 However, on appeal, the
Court of Justice, by its judgments of 2 February 2012 in Case C-249/10 P (Brosmann et al. v
Council) and of 15 November 2012 in Case C-247/10 P (Zhejiang Aokang Shoes v Council),
set aside these judgments of the General Court and annulled Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006
so far as it related to the appellants (the "Judgments"). In particular, the Court found that the
Commission ought to have examined the claims submitted by the appellants for the purpose
of claiming Market Economy Treatment ("MET") in accordance with Article 2(7)(b) and (c)
of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from
countries not members of the European Community 7 and that it could not be ruled out that
such examination would have led to a lower anti-dumping duty for the appellants.
3.
By a notice published in the Official Journal of 11 October 2013, 8 the Commission informed
the exporting producers concerned by the Judgments that it had decided to resume the
procedure for replacing the annulled parts of the contested Regulation and to examine whether
market economy conditions prevailed for these producers during the relevant period.
6
7
8
Judgments of 4.3.2012 in Case T-401/06 (Brosmann Footwear (HK) and others v Council)
and in Joined Cases T-407/06 and T-408/06 (Zhejiang Aokang Shoes and Wenzhou Taima
Shoes v Council).
OJ L 343 of 22 December 2009, p. 51.
OJ C 295 of 11 October 2013, p. 6.
6704/14
ANNEXE
DG C 1
ACZ/sy
5
LIMITE FR
4.
On 19 February 2014, the Commission adopted the above-mentioned proposal. The proposal
states that the examination of the MET claims showed that market economy conditions did
not prevail during the relevant period for the exporting producers concerned by the
Judgments, that MET must therefore be denied to these exporting producers and that the antidumping duty originally imposed by the contested Regulation should by consequence be
reinstated. To this effect, the proposed Implementing Regulation would reinstate a definitive
anti-dumping duty for the exporting producers concerned by the Judgments for the period of
application of the contested Regulation.
6704/14
ANNEXE
DG C 1
ACZ/sy
6
LIMITE FR
5.
Article 1(4) of the Commission proposal reads as follows: "The provisions in force
concerning customs duties shall apply, with the exception of Article 221 of Regulation (EEC)
2913/1992. Communication to the debtor of the amount of duty may take place more than
three years after the customs debt was incurred, but no later than two years after the entry into
force of this Regulation".
Article 221(3) of the Customs Code time-bars the communication of the re-imposed antidumping duty to the debtor for any imports which took place longer than three years ago,
provided that the period was not suspended pending an appeal under Article 243 of the
Customs Code. The contested Regulation contained a provision according to which, unless
otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties applied, 9 and it did not
contain any derogation from Article 221(3) of the Customs Code. To the extent that the
original communication of the debt to the debtor was withdrawn following the Judgments, the
operators could legitimately expect that, once the three-year period prescribed by Article
221(3) of the Customs Code had expired, any re-imposition of the debt was time-barred and,
consequently, the debt was "extinguished". 10 Once the debt was extinguished pursuant to Art.
221(3) its retroactive re-imposition would therefore infringe the legitimate expectations of the
operators concerned.
In conclusion, the Council’s assessment is that a retroactive application of the derogation
from Article 221(3) of the Customs Code is not possible in this case, as it would infringe the
legitimate expectations of the operators concerned.
9
10
Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006.
Cf. judgment of the Court of Justice of 23.2.2006 in Case C-201/04 (Molenbergnatie), point
41; judgment of 28.1.2010 in Case C-264/08 (Direct Parcel Distribution Belgium), point 43.
6704/14
ANNEXE
DG C 1
ACZ/sy
7
LIMITE FR
6.
Without the retroactive derogation from Article 221(3) the re-imposition of duties would have
a very limited financial effect in practice since the original measures expired on 31 March
2011.
7.
Furthermore, the complainants did not provide elements demonstrating that the adoption of
the proposed measure would have an impact on them.
8.
The Court of Justice has annulled the contested Regulation in its entirety, in so far as it relates
to the appellants. By consequence, the effect of the Judgments with respect to the measure
annulled is not dependent on an additional act to be adopted by the institutions. The Council
therefore concludes that Article 266 TFEU does not oblige the institutions to re-impose the
duties in the present case.
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
6704/14
ANNEXE
DG C 1
ACZ/sy
8
LIMITE FR
Article 1
The proposal for a Council implementing regulation 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 the People's Republic of China and produced by Brosmann Footwear (HK)
Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear
(HK) Co. Ltd and Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd is rejected and the proceedings with regard to
these producers are terminated.
Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official
Journal of the European Union.
Done at Brussels,
For the Council
The President
____________________________
6704/14
ANNEXE
DG C 1
ACZ/sy
9
LIMITE FR