Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd and Others v Council of the European Union (C-249/10 P)

Judgment of 2 Feb 2012

law://eu/cjeu/2010/c-249-10/para_42@2026-11-13

42It follows, first of all, from paragraphs 36 to 40 above that the Commission ought to have examined the substantiated claims submitted to it by the appellants pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of the basic regulation for the purpose of claiming MET in the context of the anti-dumping proceeding the subject of the contested regulation. It must next be found that it cannot be ruled out that such an examination would have led to a definitive anti-dumping duty being imposed on the appellants other than the 16.5% duty applicable to them pursuant to Article 1(3) of the contested regulation. It is apparent from that provision that a definitive anti-dumping duty of 9.7% was imposed on the only Chinese trader in the sample which obtained MET. As is apparent from paragraph 38 above, had the Commission found that the market economy conditions prevailed also for the appellants, they ought, when the calculation of an individual dumping margin was not possible, also to have benefited from the same rate.

Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd and Others v Council of the European Union (C-249/10 P)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections