The EU Court of Justice (“ECJ”) delivered its judgment dismissing the appeal brought by the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (“EBMA”) against the 2015 judgment of the EU General Court which annulled anti-dumping duties imposed on bicycles manufactured by Giant (China).
On 26 November 2015, the General Court ruled that the Council erred in applying Article 18(1) of the Basic Regulation and in relying on “facts available” for the purpose of calculating the export price for Giant (China). The General Court also found that, in the circumstances of that case, the Council could not rely on the alleged risk of circumvention to justify its refusal to apply an individual anti-dumping duty to Giant (China). In February 2016, that judgment was appealed by EBMA who acted as an intervener in the proceedings before the General Court.
The ECJ’s judgment follows the Opinion of the Advocate General issued in July 2017 and confirms that the anti-dumping duties imposed on Giant (China) in 2013 were illegal. The judgment is significant as it provides clarification on what may be considered as “necessary information” in the context of anti-dumping investigations and leaves no doubt that it is only when a company fails to provide such “necessary” information – and not just any information requested by the EU institutions – that the Commission is allowed to resort to “facts available” under Article 18 of the Basic Regulation. The judgment also confirms that the EU institutions cannot rely on a hypothetical risk of circumvention as the basis for refusing to calculate a company’s individual dumping margin. For these reasons, the ECJ’s judgment is likely to have far-reaching effects on future EU anti-dumping investigations.
Giant is one of the largest producers of bicycles in the world. The company was represented in this matter by Van Bael & Bellis co-managing partner Philippe De Baere (picture) and associate Joanna Redelbach
Law Firms: Van Bael & Bellis;
Clients: Giant China Co. Ltd.;