26The Court of First Instance held as follows in paragraphs 57 and 58 of the judgment under appeal:57 Consequently, even if the investigations were carried out simultaneously on similar products originating in different countries for the same period of investigation and similar conclusions were reached as to dumping, injury and the Community interest, the difference in treatment as regards the collection of antidumping duties between imports from Japan and those from the United States and Thailand has a legislative basis in the basic regulation and therefore cannot be regarded as constituting an infringement of the principle of equal treatment (see, to that effect, Case C-323/88 Sermes [1990] ECR I-3027, paragraphs 45 to 48).58 Furthermore, the Council is not obliged to refrain from applying Article 11 (2) of the basic regulation on the basis of Article 9(5) of that regulation. The latter provision relates only to the imposition of antidumping duties. In this case, the antidumping duties which the applicant had to pay during the period from 4 December 1997 to 28 February 1999 were imposed by Regulation No 3482/92 and continued to be collected on the basis of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation, which is a specific provision. Thus, the applicant had to continue paying antidumping duties on the basis of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation irrespective of the initiation of the initial investigation on imports from the United States and Thailand.’
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.