Luxembourg, 28/01/2000 (Agence Europe) - The Court of First Instance has cancelled the European Commission's decision of 7 April 1998 not to recognise BEUC (European Consumers' Organisation) as an interested party in cases on provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of raw cotton from China, India, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey.
The Commission cannot automatically exclude the consumers' associations from anti-dumping cases. It must allow them to demonstrate that they have a legitimate interest in the product which is the subject of the inquiry, states the Court of First Instance. The Commission must decide on a case by case basis whether a party can be considered as an interested party (in the proceedings).
This case was judged by the fifth "enlarged" chamber (special training of two additional judges is foreseen for matters of State aid and anti-dumping), chaired by Judge J. Cooke.
The Commission had refused BEUC the right to take part in anti-dumping cases on raw cotton from the above-mentioned countries because these products were not sold directly to consumers. Nothing in the European legislation allows the Commission to conclude that consumers are not interested in the results of anti-dumping proceedings on the pretext that they only buy finished products, explains the Court of First Instance. Also, it insists, the observers made by consumers' organisations must be useful to Community authorities in so far as the anti-dumping measures can have an impact on the price of the final product.
The Court went on to cite the example of coumarin, a fragrance compound extracted from the coumarin fruit which is imported from China. During anti-dumping proceedings the Commission has studied the possible - and, it believes, negligible - consequences of price increases of this substance via anti-dumping duties, on prices of detergents, cosmetics and perfume.
This ruling on raw cotton has no practical effect as the Council, after years of conflict between importers and users of cotton, did not have the majority required for establishing definitive anti-dumping duties (see EUROPE of 7 October 1998). However, a BEUC press release states this organisation is pleased to see it now has a voice in the chapter in anti-dumping affairs. "We had a legitimate interest in the issue because increases in the price of raw materials could affect the price of finished goods sold to consumers", it reads, continuing: "We also argued that there was no basis in the anti-dumping regulations for the Commission's decision to exclude us from all cases not involving goods sold to the final consumer". It concludes: "The case is important in our view particularly in the context of trade liberalisation. We have always argued against the Multi-Fibre Arrangement and in favour of greater access to the EU market for textile products from third countries. We believe that complaints of alleged dumping must be scrutinised carefully and critically, to ensure that the anti-dumping rules are not misused as a disguised restriction on trade. The Court decision will remove an obstacle to our intervention as an interested party in anti-dumping cases".