Appeal brought on 7 April 2008 by Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware against the judgment delivered on 29 January 2008 in Case T-206/07, Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware v Council of the European Union

(Case C-141/08 P)

(2008/C 158/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant(s): Foshan Shunde Yongjian Houewares & Hardware Co. Ltd (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat, G. Vallera, barrister)

Other party/parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two pleas in law in support of its appeal.

By its first plea, the appellant complains that the Court of First Instance did not address the first plea which it raised in support of annulment in rejecting that plea on the basis of a finding which was manifestly not supported by the documents on the file, that is to say, that the discussion concerning the interpretation of Article 2(7)(c) of the Basic Regulation (2) and of paragraph 44 of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2006 in Case T-138/02 Nanjing Metalink v Council [2006] ECR II-4347 was without relevance. As the Council itself observed in its defence, it is precisely because the Commission considered that the necessary conditions for the amendment of the initial determination, as set out in that judgment, were not met that it revoked its final decision granting the appellant market economy treatment. Therefore, the Court of First Instance based its reasoning on inaccurate findings and failed to rule on the interpretation of Article 2(7)(c) of the Basic Regulation and on the question whether or not that article allows the Commission to revise, in the course of the procedure, its initial position on the subject of the grant of market economy treatment.

By its second plea, the applicant submits that the Court of First Instance wrongly concluded that the infringement of its rights to a fair hearing, despite having been established and declared by that court, cannot entail the annulment of the contested regulation on the ground that there is no possibility that the administrative procedure could have led to a different result. The debate concerning the interpretation of Article 2(7)(c) of the Basic Regulation and of paragraph 44 of the judgment in Nanjing Metalink played a decisive role in the administrative procedure and, if the Commission had complied with the procedural requirements of Article 20(5) of the Basic Regulation, the appellant could have validly put forward its own interpretation of Article 2(7)(c) of the Basic Regulation.

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 of 23 April 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ironing boards originating in the People's Republic of China and Ukraine (OJ 2007 L 109, p. 12).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).