The applicant claims the refund of anti-dumping duties paid pursuant to Council Implementing Regulation No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia, arguing in that regard that that regulation is invalid. The defendant refuses to make the refund, arguing that the aforementioned regulation is valid.
Questions
Is Implementing Regulation No 1194/2013, as amended by Regulation 2017/1578, contrary to the basic regulation No 1225/2009, inter alia because:
– it has not been demonstrated that the conditions were met for disregarding, in the context of calculating the normal value of the like product, the costs associated with the production and sale of that product, as reflected in the records of the Argentinian exporting producers examined, in accordance with the rule laid down in Article 2(5) of the basic regulation,
– the effects of the imports were erroneously assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic regulation and it was thus not adequately demonstrated that dumped imports had caused injury within the meaning of the basic regulation, as referred to in Article 3(6) and (7) of that regulation,
– and there was thus no question of dumping and no anti-dumping duty could be imposed as referred to in Article 1 of the basic regulation?
Source Curia
