This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TA0781
Case T-781/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Puma and Others v Commission (Dumping — Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam — Implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 — Reimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitive collection of the provisional duty — Resumption of the proceeding which preceded the regulations declared invalid — Market economy treatment (MET) — Individual treatment (IT) — Desk analysis — Absence of a verification visit or a request for additional information — Non-reimbursement of anti-dumping duties — Legal basis — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Non-retroactivity — Proportionality — Misuse of powers — Non-discrimination — Previous decision-making practice)
Case T-781/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Puma and Others v Commission (Dumping — Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam — Implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 — Reimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitive collection of the provisional duty — Resumption of the proceeding which preceded the regulations declared invalid — Market economy treatment (MET) — Individual treatment (IT) — Desk analysis — Absence of a verification visit or a request for additional information — Non-reimbursement of anti-dumping duties — Legal basis — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Non-retroactivity — Proportionality — Misuse of powers — Non-discrimination — Previous decision-making practice)
Case T-781/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Puma and Others v Commission (Dumping — Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam — Implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 — Reimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitive collection of the provisional duty — Resumption of the proceeding which preceded the regulations declared invalid — Market economy treatment (MET) — Individual treatment (IT) — Desk analysis — Absence of a verification visit or a request for additional information — Non-reimbursement of anti-dumping duties — Legal basis — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Non-retroactivity — Proportionality — Misuse of powers — Non-discrimination — Previous decision-making practice)
OJ C 297, 26.7.2021, p. 28–29
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
26.7.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 297/28 |
Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — Puma and Others v Commission
(Case T-781/16) (1)
(Dumping - Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam - Implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 - Reimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitive collection of the provisional duty - Resumption of the proceeding which preceded the regulations declared invalid - Market economy treatment (MET) - Individual treatment (IT) - Desk analysis - Absence of a verification visit or a request for additional information - Non-reimbursement of anti-dumping duties - Legal basis - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Non-retroactivity - Proportionality - Misuse of powers - Non-discrimination - Previous decision-making practice)
(2021/C 297/33)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) and the eight other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented by: E. Vermulst and J. Cornelis, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)
Re:
Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of (i) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 of 18 August 2016 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and produced by Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co. Ltd, Buildyet Shoes Mfg., DongGuan Elegant Top Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Stella Footwear Co. Ltd, Dongguan Taiway Sports Goods Limited, Foshan City Nanhai Qun Rui Footwear Co., Jianle Footwear Industrial, Sihui Kingo Rubber Shoes Factory, Synfort Shoes Co. Ltd, Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co. Ltd, Wei Hao Shoe Co. Ltd, Wei Hua Shoe Co. Ltd, Win Profile Industries Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2016 L 225, p. 52); (ii) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 of 13 September 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Ltd, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd, Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2016 L 245, p. 16); and (iii) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731 of 28 September 2016 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by General Footwear Ltd (China), Diamond Vietnam Co. Ltd and Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co. Ltd and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2016 L 262, p. 4).
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders Puma SE and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to pay the costs. |