C-75/92
ECLI:EU:C:1994:279
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61992CJ0075
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
GAO YAO v COUNCIL
J U D G M E N T O F T H E C O U R T (Sixth Chamber) 7 July 1994 *
In Case C-75/92,
Gao Yao (Hong Kong) Hua Fa Industrial Co. Ltd, established in Hong Kong, represented by Paul Lippens de Cerf, of the Brussels Bar, and Charles-Etienne Gudin, of the Paris and Brussels Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of René Faltz and Patrick Weinacht, 6 Rue Heine,
applicant,
v
Council of the European Union, represented by Ramon Torrent, Legal Adviser, and Jorge Monteiro, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, assisted by Bernard Spinoit and Anne Wese, of the Charleroi Bar, with an address for service in Lux- embourg at the office of Bruno Eynard, Director of the Legal Affairs Department at the European Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad Adenauer,
defendant,
supported by
Commission of the European Communities, represented by Eric White, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, assisted by Claus-Michael Happe, a national official on secondment to the Legal Service of the Commission, with an address for service
* Language of the case: French.
I-3179
JUDGMENT OF 7. 7. 1994 — CASE C-75/92
in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
and
Federation Européenne des Fabricants de Briquets ASBL (European Federation of Lighter Manufacturers), established in Brussels, represented by Vincent Effinier, of the Namur Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Kaufhold, 7 Côte d'Eich,
interveners,
A P P L I C A T I O N for the annulment of Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) N o 3433/91 of 25 November 1991 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in Japan, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Thailand and defini- tively collecting the provisional anti-dumping duty (OJ 1991 L 326, p. 1), in so far as they relate to the applicant,
T H E C O U R T (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber, M Diez de Velasco (Rap- porteur), C. N . Kakouris, F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges,
Advocate General: C. O . Lenz, Registrar: H . A. Rühi, Principal Administrator,
having regard to the Report for the Hearing,
after hearing oral argument from the parties at the hearing on 20 January 1994,
I-3180
GAO YAO v COUNCIL
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 16 March 1994,
gives the following
Judgment
1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 11 March 1992, Gao Yao (Hong Kong) Hua Fa Industrial Co. Ltd, which is established in Hong Kong (hereinafter 'Gao Yao Hong Kong'), brought an action pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty seeking the annulment of Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) N o 3433/91 of 25 November 1991 imposing a defini- tive anti-dumping duty on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint light- ers originating in Japan, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Thailand and definitively collecting the provisional anti-dumping duty (OJ 1991 L 326, p. 1), in so far as they relate to that company.
2 Gao Yao Hong Kong is a company which was established on 22 April 1987 and which is governed by Hong Kong law. An extract from the Register of Companies of Hong Kong kept under the Companies Ordinance shows that it is registered under N o 189024 in that register. The extract is accompanied by the minutes of a board meeting of 9 December 1988.
3 In November 1989 a complaint was lodged by the European Federation of Lighter Manufacturers asking for an anti-dumping proceeding to be initiated with respect to imports into the Community of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Thailand. The complaint identified as one of the producers Gao Yao, an undertaking estab- lished in the People's Republic of China (hereinafter 'Gao Yao China').
I-3181
JUDGMENT OF 7. 7. 1994 — CASE C-75/92
4 O n 7 April 1990 the Commission announced the initiation of a proceeding, as pro- vided for in Council Regulation (EEC) N o 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the Euro- pean Economic Community (OJ 1988 L 209, p. 1). In the notice of initiation of the proceeding (OJ 1990 C 89, p. 3) the Commission invited interested parties to make known their views, in particular by replying to the anti-dumping questionnaire. O n e of the questionnaires was sent to Gao Yao Hua Fa Industrial, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
5 O n 25 May 1990 the Commission received a reply to the questionnaire in which the aforesaid undertaking gave information on its structure and activities. It also stated its address (Guangdong Province, Zhaoging City, Gao Yao County, Jing Dao, People's Republic of China) and specified that it had a 'sales office' at Hill- wood Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, H o n g Kong. The reply to the questionnaire asked for correspondence to be directed for ease of communication to the repre- sentative office in Hong Kong, for the attention of C. K. Chu, Gao Yao (HK) Hua Fa Industrial Co. Ltd.
6 O n 19 February 1991 the Commission stated the results of its investigations to the representatives of the undertakings which had provided information. In the case of Gao Yao China it noted that only sales by that Chinese undertaking to the Com- munity had been taken into consideration and that sales on the Hong Kong domestic market had been disregarded. The Commission fixed the dumping mar- gin for China at 18.0%.
7 O n 26 March 1991 the applicant submitted to the Commission a memorandum with supporting documents, pointing out factors which ought to change the method of calculating the normal value of the product in question and lead to a dumping margin of the order of 0.6%.
I-3182
GAO YAO v COUNCIL
s Commission Regulation (EEC) N o 1386/91 of 23 March 1991 imposing a provi- sional anti-dumping duty on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in Japan, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Thailand (OJ 1991 L 133, p. 20) fixed the rate of the anti-dumping duty for products originating in the People's Republic of China at 17.8%.
9 O n 19 June 1991, at a hearing before the Commission, the applicant argued that Gao Yao China could not be regarded as an exporter, in view of the provisions of Article 2(6) of Regulation N o 2423/88, since all the lighters manufactured in China and sold by Gao Yao Hong Kong are exported from Hong Kong, which is a coun- try with a market economy. According to the applicant, the normal value should therefore be the comparable price actually paid for a like product on the domestic market of the country of export, namely Hong Kong.
io O n 2 August 1991 the Commission informed the applicant of the considerations on the basis of which it intended to adopt a final position and impose an anti- dumping duty of 16.9%.
n O n 28 October 1991 the Commission submitted to the Council a proposal for a regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty of 16.9% on products originating in the People's Republic of China. That rate was in fact used in Regulation N o 3433/91.
12 Gao Yao Hong Kong brought this action against that regulation.
I-3183
JUDGMENT OF 7. 7. 1994 — CASE C-75/92
i3 The Council considers that its application is inadmissible. Thus the applicant describes itself as a Chinese undertaking, that is, a sales office of the Chinese pro- ducing company, on the one hand and a Hong Kong company on the other hand, in order to have the appearance of an exporting company formally independent of the producing company.
H The Council explains that that producing company is a 'joint venture' set up in China to produce there and take advantage of conditions in a country which still has no market economy. That 'joint venture' trades with the Community from H o n g Kong, a country with a market economy which is fully integrated into the world trade system.
is The Council concludes that this is a case where the country used as a sales plat- form (Hong Kong) is not concerned by the investigation or by the contested reg- ulation, nor does it manufacture the product in question.
ie The applicant states that it is a non-independent exporter integrated into the pro- ducer. Both the capital structure and the exclusive sales agreement authorizing it to sell the entire production of the Chinese undertaking demonstrate the inter- dependency of it and the Chinese producer.
i7 The applicant observes that the Community authorities were informed that the undertaking established under Chinese law produced the lighters in China for the H o n g Kong company, which was responsible for the sale of those lighters both on
I-3184
GAO YAO v COUNCIL
the Hong Kong domestic market and by way of exports to the Community. The producer undertaking, established under Chinese law, has no sales activity and does not export to the Community. All its sales are carried out by a company gov- erned by Hong Kong law. N o sales are concluded with independent third parties.
is The applicant states that it was involved in the administrative procedure before the Commission, that it is identified in the definitive regulation and that it is affected by the preliminary measures. Moreover, if it were no more than a trading interme- diary and the regulation only concerned Gao Yao China, the latter would not have been able to reply to the questionnaire except by stating that its entire production was sent to Hong Kong.
i9 The Commission, which was given leave to intervene in the proceedings by order of 7 September 1992, states that the applicant is a company established under Hong Kong law which is seeking the annulment of a regulation concerning prod- ucts originating in the People's Republic of China.
20 With respect to the involvement of Gao Yao Hong Kong in the administrative pro- cedure, the Commission states that in an anti-dumping investigation it is its duty to collect all the information which is necessary for examining the case and that all persons are entitled to submit information. The identity of the person providing the information is not important if the information is reliable and relevant. The Commission therefore does not normally examine the legal identity of the person providing information. It is not necessary for it to ensure compliance with the conditions for admissibility of an application to the Court where it is merely a case of collecting information as part of an anti-dumping investigation.
I-3185
JUDGMENT OF 7. 7. 1994 — CASE C-75/92
2i The Commission observes that the reply to the questionnaire and the other infor- mation on the lighters at issue were submitted by or on behalf of a Chinese producer/exporter. Even if the applicant took part in the administrative investiga- tion as a supplier of information, its application does not comply with the condi- tions of admissibility laid down by the Court's case-law.
22 According to the Commission, the applicant must show that it is directly and indi- vidually concerned other than by its participation in the administrative investiga- tion, or at the very least that it should have been given special treatment and had an individual anti-dumping duty imposed on it.
23 The Commission points out that an anti-dumping procedure concerning a country with no market economy, unlike anti-dumping procedures concerning other coun- tries, usually leads to a single anti-dumping duty being fixed for the whole coun- try. That is because the normal value for such a country is established on the basis of a special calculation, since that normal value has to apply to the whole country, and because export prices are presumed to be coordinated in view of central con- trol over exports. The determination of a single anti-dumping duty for such a country has the consequence that only the State or the State agency responsible for exporting the product in question is directly and individually concerned by anti- dumping measures. Consequently, special treatment of individual exporters, in other words determination of specific anti-dumping duties for each economic operator in such a country, becomes possible only if it can be established that the exporters act independently.
24 The European Federation of Lighter Manufacturers, which was granted leave to intervene in the proceedings by order of 19 February 1993, considers that a Hong Kong company cannot bring an action for annulment of Regulation N o 3433/91, which relates to products originating in the People's Republic of China.
I-3186
GAO YAO v COUNCIL
25 Since the Council, the Commission and the European Federation of Lighter Man- ufacturers challenge the admissibility of the application, that question should be examined first.
26 Although it is true that, in the light of the criteria set out in the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, regulations imposing anti-dumping duties are in fact, as regards their nature and their scope, of a legislative character, in that they apply to all the economic operators concerned taken as a whole, their provisions may none the less be of individual concern to certain economic operators (see the judg- ments in Joined Cases 239/82 and 275/82 Allied Corporation and Others v Com- mission [1984] ECR 1005, paragraph 11, and Case 53/83 Allied Corporation and Others v Council [1985] ECR 1621, paragraph 4).
27 The Court has held that generally this is the case with producers and exporters who establish that they were identified in the measures adopted by the Commis- sion or the Council or were concerned by the preliminary measures, and with importers whose resale prices for the goods in question are used for determining the export price.
28 The applicant was not concerned by the preliminary measures, since it is a com- pany established in Hong Kong on which anti-dumping duties were not imposed by the Community and which was not the target of the investigation (see the notice of initiation of the proceeding, cited above).
29 Moreover, according to its own statements, the applicant intervened merely as a channel of transmission in Hong Kong set up to facilitate correspondence between
I-3187
JUDGMENT OF 7. 7. 1994 — CASE C-75/92
the Commission and Gao Yao China. Thus the applicant replied to the Commis- sion's questionnaire as a representative of that undertaking.
30 Such an approach is also consistent with the principles governing the conduct of investigations into dumping, since the provisions of Regulation N o 2423/88 require the Commission to obtain all the information necessary for the investiga- tion, whatever the source of that information. Sending correspondence intended for Gao Yao China to an address in Hong Kong therefore does not mean that Gao Yao Hong Kong, as an office for transmitting documents, was accepted by the Commission as an interlocutor with respect to the subject-matter of the investiga- tion.
3i It follows that the applicant was not, through its involvement as an office for the transmission of documents, concerned by the preliminary measures as defined in the case-law referred to above.
32 The application must therefore be declared inadmissible.
Costs
33 Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, including those of the intervener, the European Federation of Lighter Manufactur-
I-3188
GAO YAO v COUNCIL
ers, under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure. In accordance with Arti- cle 69(4), the Commission must bear its own costs.
O n those grounds,
T H E C O U R T (Sixth Chamber)
hereby:
1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those of the European Fed- eration of Lighter Manufacturers. The Commission of the European Com- munities must bear its own costs.
Mancini Diez de Velasco Kakouris
Schockweiler Kapteyn
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 7 July 1994.
R. Grass G. F. Mancini
Registrar President of the Sixth Chamber
I-3189