Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/1248

3.3.2025

(Case T-26/25)

(C/2025/1248)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: BYD Auto Co. Ltd (Xi’an, China), BYD Auto Industry Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China), Changsha BYD Auto Co. Ltd (Changsha, China), Changsha Xingchao Auto Co. Ltd (Changsha), Changzhou BYD Auto Co. Ltd (Changzhou, China), Fuzhou BYD Industrial Co. Ltd (Fuzhou, China), Hefei BYD Auto Co. Ltd (Hefei, China), Jinan BYD Auto Co. Ltd (Jinan, China) (represented by: E. Vermulst, J. Cornelis and M. Van Luchene, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2754 of 29 October 2024 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of new battery electric vehicles designed for the transport of persons originating in the People’s Republic of China (1); and

—order the European Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants request the annulment on the basis of the following grounds.

First, in connection with the treatment of Hunan Yuneng, the Commission:

—Violated Article 127 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 (2) in ruling that Hunan Yuneng was a related party to the BYD Group;

—Violated Articles 28(1) and 28(3) basic Regulation (3) by applying facts available for information that was not in the applicants’ possession;

—Failed to consider all elements on the record and, as a result, committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding there was no evidence that prices were at arm’s length; and

—Violated Article 6(d) of the basic Regulation in calculating the benefit.

Second, in connection with the credit lines, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and violated:

—Article 3(2) basic Regulation in finding that a benefit has been conferred on the applicants;

—Article 6(d) basic Regulation by wrongly calculating the benefit; and

—Articles 4(2) and 4(5) basic Regulation in finding that the alleged subsidy is specific.

Third, in connection with the bank acceptances and bill discounting, the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and violated:

—Article 3(1)(a)(i) basic Regulation in finding that there was a financial contribution by the government with respect to certain bank acceptances;

—Article 3(2) and Article 6(d) basic Regulation in finding that the bank acceptances fully covered by a cash deposit conferred a benefit and in calculating the benefit;

—Article 4(2) and Article 4(5) basic Regulation in finding that the bank acceptance and the bill discounting scheme are specific; and

—Article 3(2) and Article 6(d) basic Regulation in finding that the bill discounting for bank acceptances fully covered by a cash deposit conferred a benefit and in calculating the benefit.

Finally, in connection with the Fiscal Subsidy Scheme, the Commission:

—Violated Article 15(1) basic Regulation by countervailing a withdrawn subsidy;

—Violated Article 3(2) basic Regulation in finding that a benefit has been conferred on the applicants; and

—Violated Article 7(2) basic Regulation by wrongly calculating the amount of the countervailable subsidies per unit of the subsidised product exported to the EU.

(1)

OJ L, 2024/2754, 29.10.2024

(2)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code.

(3)

Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1248/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—