(1)

In Case C-249/10 P (2), the Court of Justice ruled that the sampling technique provided for in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (3) may not be applied for the purposes of the determination of claims of market economy treatment to be made under Article 2(7)(c) of that Regulation.

(2)

The ruling by the Court of Justice would require that the Commission examine all applications for market economy treatment filed by cooperating exporting producers who are not part of the sample, irrespective of whether the number of cooperating producers is large. However, such a practice would impose a disproportionate administrative burden on the investigating authorities of the Union. Therefore, is it appropriate to amend Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

(3)

Moreover, the use of the sampling technique provided for in Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 for the purposes of the determination of claims of market economy treatment to be made under Article 2(7)(c) of that Regulation is allowed under the rules of the World Trade Organisation. For example, the panel of the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation in dispute DS405 (European Union — Anti-Dumping measures on Certain Footwear from China, report adopted on 22 February 2012) found that China did not establish that the European Union acted inconsistently with Articles 2.4 and 6.10.2 of the Anti-dumping Agreement, Paragraph 15(a)(ii) of China's Accession Protocol, and Paragraphs 151(e) and (f) of China's Accession Working Party Report, by failing to examine the market economy treatment applications of the cooperating Chinese exporting producers that are not part of the sample for the original investigation.

(4)

Therefore, taking into account this background and for reasons of legal certainty, it is considered appropriate to introduce a provision clarifying that the decision to limit the investigation to a reasonable number of parties by using samples on the basis of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 also applies to the parties subject to an examination in accordance with Article 2(7)(b) and (c). Consequently, it is also appropriate to clarify that a determination under Article 2(7)(c) should not be made for exporting producers that are not part of the sample, unless such producers request and obtain individual examination in accordance with Article 17(3).

(5)

Furthermore, it is considered appropriate to clarify that the anti-dumping duty to be applied to imports from exporters or producers which have made themselves known in accordance with Article 17, but were not included in the examination shall not exceed the weighted average margin of dumping established for the parties in the sample, irrespective of whether the normal value established for such parties was determined on the basis of Article 2(1) to 2(6) or Article 2(7)(a).

(6)

Lastly, the three month time-limit by which a determination pursuant to Article 2(7)(c) should be made has proved impracticable, in particular in proceedings where sampling in accordance with Article 17 is applied. It is therefore considered appropriate to remove this time-limit.

(7)

In the interests of legal certainty and the principle of sound administration, it is necessary to provide that these amendments should apply as soon as possible to all new and pending investigations.

(8)

Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

Article 2(7) is amended as follows:

(2)

In Article 9(6), the first sentence is replaced by the following:

"When the Commission has limited its examination in accordance with Article 17, any anti-dumping duty applied to imports from exporters or producers which have made themselves known in accordance with Article 17 but were not included in the examination shall not exceed the weighted average margin of dumping established with respect to the parties in the sample, irrespective of whether the normal value for such parties is determined on the basis of Article 2(1) to 2(6) or Article 2(7)(a).".