20.3.2014 Official Journal of the European Union L 82/27 DECISIONS COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 18 March 2014 rejecting the proposal for an Implementing Regulation reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and produced by Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd and Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd (2014/149/EV) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community ('), and in particular Article 9 thereof, Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission, after consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: (1) On 5 October 2006 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (%) (the contested Regulation’), which imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam. Following () OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51. () OJ L 275, 6.10.2006, p. 1. On 23 March 2006, the Commission had already adopted Regulation (EC) No 553/2006 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (O] L 98, 6.4.2006, p. 3). Subsequently to the adoption of the contested Regulation, the measures were extended to imports consigned from the Macao Special Administrative Region by Council Regulation (EC) No 388/2008 of 29 April 2008 extending the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of the same product consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not (O] L 117, 1.5.2008, p. 1). an expiry review, the measures were extended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 (}). The measures expired on 31 March 2011. (2)  Certain exporting producers brought actions before the General Court for annulment of the contested Regu- lation. The General Court dismissed these actions (). However, on appeal, the Court of Justice (the Court), in its judgments of 2 February 2012 in Case C-249/10 P, Brosmann et al. v Council, and of 15 November 2012 in Case C-247/10 P, Zhejiang Aokang Shoes v Council (the ‘judgments), set aside the judgments of the General Court and annulled Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 in so far as it related to the appellants. In particular, the Court found that the Commission ought to have examined the claims submitted by the appellants for the purpose of claiming Market Economy Treatment (MET) in accordance with Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and that it could not be ruled out that such examination would have led to a lower anti-dumping duty for the appellants. (3) By means of a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (°), the Commission informed the exporting producers concerned by the judgments that it had decided to resume the procedure for replacing the annulled parts of the contested Regulation and to examine whether market economy conditions prevailed for these producers during the relevant period. (}) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 12942009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (O] L 352, 30.12.2009, p. 1). (*) Judgments of 4.3.2012 in Case T-401/06, Brosmann Footwear (HK) and others v Council ([2010] ECR 1I-671) and in Joined Cases T- 407/06 and T-408/06, Zhejiang Aokang Shoes and Wenzhou Taima Shoes v Council ([2010] ECR II-747). () OJ C 295, 11.10.2013, p. 6.