4.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/39

(Case T-263/22)

(2022/C 257/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME) (Beijing, China) and 8 others (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/191 of 16 February 2022 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (1), in so far as it relates to the CCCME, the individual companies, and the members concerned; and

—order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation and the principle of good administration in its determination of the normal value.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to ensure a fair comparison in its dumping determination in violation of Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 18 of the basic Regulation and Article 6.8 and Annex II of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement in its use of facts available for labour.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation in its determination of the dumping margin for the non-sampled cooperating exporting producers.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to make an objective examination of injury and causation based on positive evidence in violation of Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), and 3(6), in conjunction with Article 4(1), of the basic Regulation.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s undercutting analysis is in violation of Articles 3(2), 3(3), and 9(4) of the basic Regulation.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to make a fair comparison in its assessment of the price effects in violation of Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(6), and 9(4) of the basic Regulation.

8.Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to make an objective examination based on positive evidence with respect to the injury indicators, in violation of Articles 3(2) and 3(5) of the basic Regulation.

9.Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 6(7), Articles 19(1), (2), and (3) and Articles 20(2) and 20(4) of the basic Regulation, and the rights of defence.

* Language of the case: English.

(1) OJ 2022, L 36, p. 1.