1.

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 (1) of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 6(6) and (7) and Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (3) of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because the Commission did not give Chinese producers/exporters the opportunity, in good time, to take cognisance of the information regarding product types on the basis of which the normal value was established and/or because the Commission, in the context of the calculation of the dumping margin for the products concerned, when comparing the normal value of the products of an Indian producer with the export prices of similar Chinese products, had refused to take into account adjustments related to import duties on raw materials and indirect taxes in the analogue country, India, and to differences in production (costs)?

2.

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 3(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because, for the purposes of the assessment of injury, the Commission considered the imports from two Chinese companies which had been found not to be involved in dumping to be dumped imports?

3.

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 3(2), (6) and (7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because, in assessing whether EU industry exports contributed to the injury suffered by that industry, the Commission relied on information relating to producers who are not domestic producers?

4.

Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 19(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because the Commission failed to ensure that the two domestic (Italian) producers provided adequate explanations as to the reasons why it was not possible to provide a summary of confidential information?

5.

Does Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China infringe Article 6(6) and (7) and Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community due to the Commission’s delay in communicating product information, thereby infringing the interests of Chinese producers/exporters?

6.

Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (as amended) provides that the individual anti-dumping duty rate of 64.4% applicable to the company Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd., Ningbo City, is conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice, which conforms to the requirements set out in Annex II, and that, if no such invoice is presented, the anti-dumping duty rate applicable to all other companies will apply. Can the individual anti-dumping duty rate still be granted to the declarant in good faith, in the context of an additional claim for anti-dumping duties following an Olaf investigation, if Olaf has established that the disputed fasteners are not of the indicated Indonesian origin, but were actually manufactured in China by the company Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd., but an invoice with the required particulars for the individual anti-dumping duty cannot be submitted because it was the intention of the exporters to mislead the authorities of the Member States?