Maxcom v Chin Haur Indonesia (Judgment) [2017] EUECJ C-247/15 (26 January 2017)

Maxcom v Chin Haur Indonesia (Judgment) [2017] EUECJ C-247/15 (26 January 2017)

The General Court erred in law by requiring direct evidence of transhipment and denying the Council the ability to rely on a body of consistent evidence in the context of non-cooperation by Chin Haur Indonesia PT. The Council had sufficient consistent evidence to conclude that Chin Haur engaged in transhipment...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] EUECJ C-247/15
Parties
Appellant: Maxcom Ltd; Appellant: Council of the European Union; Appellant: European Commission; Respondent: Chin Haur Indonesia PT
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
26 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Joined Appeals From General Court Judgment (eu:t:2015:163) / Court of Justice of the European Union, Fourth Chamber, Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeals allowed; General Court judgment set aside; action for annulment by Chin Haur Indonesia PT dismissed.
Legal Topics
Anti Dumping Duties, Circumvention of Trade Measures, Burden of Proof, Standard of Proof, Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions, Procedural Rights in Trade Investigations
European Union Law International Trade Law Administrative Law Anti Dumping Duties Circumvention of Trade Measures Burden of Proof Standard of Proof Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maxcom Ltd

Appellant

Council of the European Union

Appellant

European Commission

Appellant

Chin Haur Indonesia PT

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Joined Appeals From General Court Judgment (eu:t:2015:163) / Court of Justice of the European Union, Fourth Chamber, Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council and Commission had sufficient evidence to conclude that Chin Haur Indonesia PT engaged in transhipment circumventing anti-dumping duties under Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009
  2. 2 Whether the General Court erred in law by requiring direct evidence of transhipment and by annulling the regulation as regards Chin Haur
  3. 3 Whether the burden and standard of proof were correctly applied in the context of non-cooperation by the exporter

Ratio Decidendi

The General Court erred in law by requiring direct evidence of transhipment and denying the Council the ability to rely on a body of consistent evidence in the context of non-cooperation by Chin Haur Indonesia PT. The Council had sufficient consistent evidence to conclude that Chin Haur engaged in transhipment circumventing anti-dumping duties. The annulment of the regulation as regards Chin Haur was therefore unjustified.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; General Court judgment set aside; action for annulment by Chin Haur Indonesia PT dismissed.

Orders

  • Sets aside the General Court judgment of 19 March 2015 (T-412/13, EU:T:2015:163)
  • Dismisses the action for annulment brought by Chin Haur Indonesia PT