EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62004TN0199
Case T-199/04: Action brought on 28 May 2004 by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd against the Council of the European Union
Case T-199/04: Action brought on 28 May 2004 by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd against the Council of the European Union
Case T-199/04: Action brought on 28 May 2004 by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd against the Council of the European Union
ĠU C 217, 28.8.2004, p. 24–24
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
28.8.2004 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 217/24 |
Action brought on 28 May 2004 by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd against the Council of the European Union
(Case T-199/04)
(2004/C 217/44)
Language of the case: English
An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 May 2004 by Gul Ahmed Textil Mills Ltd, Landhi, Karachi (Pakistan), represented by L. Ruessmann, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
Annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 397/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan (1) to the extent it imposes anti-dumping duties on the product of the applicant, |
|
— |
order the Council to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The applicant is a Pakistani company which produces bed linen and exports it to the European Union. Its products are subject to the anti-dumping duty imposed by the contested regulation. In support of its application to annul that regulation, the applicant invokes the following grounds:
|
— |
a breach of Article 5, paragraphs 7 and 9, of Regulation (EC) No. 384/96 (2) and a breach of Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the World Trade Organisation Anti-dumping Agreement, insofar as the initiation of the investigation is concerned. The applicant submits that the complaint, on the basis of which the investigation was opened, was manifestly insufficient both with regard to what it presents as facts and with regard to its reasoning in support of the opening of an investigation, |
|
— |
a manifest error of assessment, a breach of Articles 2, paragraphs 3 and 5, and Article 18, paragraph 4, of Regulation (EC) No. 384/96, and a breach of the World Trade Organisation Anti-dumping Agreement, with regard to the calculation of the normal value, |
|
— |
a breach of Article 2, paragraph 10, of Regulation (EC) No. 384/96, the World Trade Organisation Anti-dumping Agreement and of the obligation to state adequate reasons under Article 253 EC in connexion with the drawback adjustment in the comparison of the normal value and export price, |
|
— |
a manifest error of assessment, a breach of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No. 384/96, and a breach of the World Trade Organisation Anti-dumping Agreement, as regards the determination of the existence of material injury as well as the establishment of a causal link between the allegedly dumped imports and the alleged injury. |
(1) OJ L66 4/3/2004 p. 1
(2) OJ L 56, 06.03.1996 p. 1