European Business Law, the fourth volume in our series, shows how the European authorities simultaneously abolish all restrictions on access to and exercise of economic activities and support the growth of domestic markets, through the harmonization the internal legislation or the enactment of genuinely unified regulations.

European Business Law

Where it is shown that the dumping margin, on the basis of which duties were paid, has been eliminated, or reduced to a level which is below the level of the duty in force, an importer may request the Commission to reimburse the anti-dumping duties collected (Regulation No 2016/1036, Article 11(8)). A Commission notice states the aim, basic principles, procedure and outcome of the reimbursement .
 …

Conditions of admissibility

Where it is shown that the dumping margin, on the basis of which duties were paid, has been eliminated, or reduced to a level which is below the level of the duty in force, an importer may request the Commission to reimburse the anti-dumping duties collected (Regulation No 2016/1036, Article 11(8)). A Commission notice states the aim, basic principles, procedure and outcome of the reimbursement .

The request for reimbursement may be made by any importer who has paid duties either directly or indirectly, whether or not it was part of the sample (Notice No 2002/C 127/06, point 2.2) . The application must be introduced in writing within six months , to the appropriate authorities of the Member State, from the date on which the amount of the anti-dumping duties to be collected on these products has been established . This mandatory deadline, which is an absolute condition of admissibility irrespective of the circumstances, must be respected even where the regulation imposing the duties is being challenged before the General Court or the application of the regulation is being challenged before national administrative or judicial bodies . Neither the appeal procedures before the customs authorities nor the submission before the Commission on the issue of like product may interrupt it . Thus, the fact that a regulation which imposed anti-dumping duties is declared invalid in whole or in part by the EU judicature does not constitute unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure within the meaning of the Customs Code allowing an extension of the three-year period during which a trader may claim repayment of anti-dumping duties .

The application for a refund must be duly supported by evidence. This is the case where the Commission services have been in possession of all the data required for the investigation . The application must contain sufficient precise information on the amount of the requested refund of anti-dumping duties, such as, inter alia, invoice(s) and other documents on which the customs procedures were based, customs documents identifying the import transactions for which a refund is sought showing, specifically, the basis for determining the amount of the duties to be levied, declarations that the duty collected has not been reimbursed, that the prices on which the application is based are genuine and that there is no compensatory arrangement made before, or a statement from the exporting producer that the dumping margin has been reduced or eliminated and that it accepts to provide to the Commission all the relevant supporting data. The information must be provided within a reasonable period of time . Where the merits of the refund application are dependent in their entirety on the findings of the review, the date on which it is duly substantiated by evidence corresponds to the date on which the findings of the review were published .

The Commission decision on the refund must be made within a maximum of 18 months after the date on which the duly substantiated application for refund was submitted. The Member States then have 90 days to authorize it (Regulation No 2016/1036, Article 11) .

Commission Notice No 2002/C 127/06 of 29 May 2002, concerning the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties, OJ C 127, 10.

See Commission Decision No 98/579 of 7 October 1998, imports of DRAMs (Japan), LawLex201100000604JBJ, which states that an applicant for the refund of anti-dumping duties is inadmissible where they have not been paid by the application who had proceeded into a creditor's voluntary liquidation.

Case C-351/04 Ikea Wholesale [2007] ECR I-7723, LawLex200900000445JBJ, which considers that it is for the national courts to draw the consequences, in their legal system with respect to the refund of the duties, of a declaration of invalidity of a regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping duties; T-91/05 Sinara Handel v Council and Commission [2007] ECR II-245, LawLex200900001392JBJ and T-429/04 Trubowest Handel and Makarov v Council and Commission [2008] ECR II-128*, Summ.pub., LawLex200900001356JBJ, confirmed by C-419/08 P Trubowest Handel and Makarov v Council and Commission [2010] ECR I-2259, LawLex201100000326JBJ, which states that the action for the refund of anti-dumping duties falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national courts.

Commission Decision No 96/498 of 18 July 1996, imports of certain polyester yarns (Indonesia), LawLex201100000593JBJ.

Depending on each specific case, the six-month time-limit will be counted from: 

- the date of entry into force of a Council regulation imposing definitive duties and collecting amounts secured by way of provisional duty,

- the date of determination of the definitive anti-dumping duties, i.e. the date of acceptance of the customs declaration by the customs authorities, or

- where the correct amount of duties is established pursuant to a post-clearance check, the latter date of determination of the duties payable applies.

Commission Notice No 2002/C 127/06 aforementioned, 3.1.3. a); See, inter alia, Commission Decision No 96/498 of 18 July 1996, imports of certain polyester yarns (Indonesia), LawLex201100000593JBJ, which states that an application for refund is inadmissible where the time elapsed between the date of due determination of the anti-dumping duty and the lodging of the application is over eight months.

Commission Decision No 98/72 of 8 January 1998, imports of woven polyolefin sacks (China), LawLex201100000605JBJ; See, contra, No 91/302 of 23 May 1991, imports of compact disc players (Japan), LawLex201100000579JBJ.

Cases  C-659-13 and C-34-14 C & J Clark International Ltd , Puma SE v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, Hauptzollamt Nürnberg, Judgment of 4 February 2016, LawLex201600000249JBJ.

Commission Decision No 1999/219 of 11 March 1999, imports of silicon metal (Brazil), LawLex201100000519JBJ.

Commission Decision No 95/381 of 15 September 1995, imports of espadrilles (China), LawLex201100000591JBJ, which considers that an application for a refund is admissible where, despite repeated contacts with the applicant and the Commission's own efforts to obtain the necessary information, such information was not supplied within a reasonable time to a degree permitting the Commission to determine whether the duty collected for the transactions concerned exceeded the actual dumping margin.

Commission Decision No 98/730 of 8 December 1998, imports of certain large electrolytic aluminium capacitors (Japan), LawLex201100000606JBJ.

European Business Law

475. Conditions of admissibility

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

475. Conditions of admissibility

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise