This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/020/42
Case T-364/06: Action brought on 6 December 2006 — Xinhui Alida Polythene v Council
Case T-364/06: Action brought on 6 December 2006 — Xinhui Alida Polythene v Council
Case T-364/06: Action brought on 6 December 2006 — Xinhui Alida Polythene v Council
OJ C 20, 27.1.2007, p. 28–29
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 20, 27.1.2007, p. 27–28
(BG, RO)
|
27.1.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 20/28 |
Action brought on 6 December 2006 — Xinhui Alida Polythene v Council
(Case T-364/06)
(2007/C 20/43)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Xinhui Alida Polythene Ltd (Xinhui, China) (represented by: C. Munro, Solicitor)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annulment, pursuant to Article 230 of the Treaty of the European Union, of Council Regulation 1425/2006 of 25 September 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand, and terminating the proceeding on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in Malaysia; and |
|
— |
order the Council to pay the costs of the appellant in the present proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant seeks the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 of 25 September 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand, and terminating the proceeding on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in Malaysia (1).
The applicant contends that the Council has infringed essential procedural requirements and misused its powers by adopting the contested regulation without properly considering the underlying proceedings conducted by the Commission.
According to the applicant, the Commission i) did not properly examine the standing of the complainants and/or failed to make a proper determination of their standing, ii) considered irrelevant information and/or failed to take available information into account, iii) made an inadequate assessment of the injury to the relevant Community industry, iv) failed to establish that there was a Community interest in imposing duties on imports, and v) infringed the applicant's rights of defence.
The applicant alleges that this amounts to an abuse of powers.