The scope of judicial review by EU courts is limited to specific grounds, such as lack of competence, infringement of procedural requirements, breach of EU law, and misuse of powers. The EU courts generally grant the European Commission significant discretion in anti-dumping (AD) investigations, given their economic, political, and legal complexity. However, this discretion does not excuse the Commission from ensuring procedural fairness, including safeguarding the rights of defence for interested parties. Cases like Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD) and Jinan Meide demonstrate the courts’ commitment to protecting procedural rights, such as the right to information, while balancing the Commission’s duty to protect confidential data. Judicial scrutiny has been more pronounced in certain cases, such as Giant and Sinopec, where the courts annulled AD regulations due to errors in methodology or injury assessments. However, the courts maintain that their review is primarily limited to identifying manifest errors, rather than substituting their judgment for the Commission’s, as exemplified in Hubei Xinyegang. Different categories of private parties, including exporting producers, associations, importers, and EU producers, encounter varying levels of difficulty in meeting the admissibility requirements for initiating an action to annul AD regulations. Remedies following annulment typically include the reimbursement of AD duties and are often followed by the reopening of investigations by the Commission. While the courts protect procedural rights, their review of substantive trade policy decisions remains deferential. The establishment of specialized trade courts could improve substantive reviews of these complex matters.
Global Trade and Customs Journal