201806220641970442018/C 240/643072018TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180516555511

(Case T-307/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co. Ltd (Huzhou City, Chine) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and P. Billiet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/330 of 5 March 2018 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council in so far as the applicant is concerned; and

—order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that Regulation 2018/330 was adopted by the Commission in a manner that materially violates the rights of defence of the applicant in breach of Articles 3(2), 16(1), 19(2), 19(4), 20(2), 20(4), 21(5) and 21(7) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the Protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union as well as Articles 3(1), 5(3), 6(1), 6(1)(2), 6(2), 6(4), 6(5)(1), 6(6) and 6(9) of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission, in adopting Regulation 2018/330, committed manifest errors of assessment of the law and of facts by having recourse to the analogue country methodology for the calculation of the normal value for the applicant in breach of Articles 1(2), 1(3), 2(a)(1), 2(a)(7) and 11(9) of Regulation 2016/1036 as well as Articles 2.2 and 6.10.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Commission failed to provide any reasons whatsoever for the application, in the case of the applicant, of Article 2(7) of Regulation 2016/1036.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission, in adopting Regulation 2018/330, committed manifest errors of assessment of the law and of facts by adopting an erroneous PCN coding of the product concerned in breach of Articles 2(a)(2), 2(a)(5), 2(a)(6), 6(7),6(8) and 16(1) of Regulation 2016/1036 as well as Articles 2(2)(1)(1), 2(2)(2), 2(4) and 2(6) of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission, in adopting Regulation 2018/330, committed manifest errors of assessment of the law and of facts since the applied methodology materially distorted the dumping margin of the applicant in breach of Articles 1(4), 2(a)(6), 2(c)(10), 2(d)(11), 17(1), 17(2) and 18(3) of Regulation 2016/1036 as well as Articles 2(2), 2(2)(2), 2(4), 2(4)(2), 2(6), 3(6) and 9(2) of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission, in adopting Regulation 2018/330, committed manifest errors of assessment of the law and of facts in finding injury as well as likelihood of recurrence of injury and in not verifying causality in breach of Articles 1(1), 1(2), 1(3), 2(d)(12), 2(b)(9), 3(2), 3(3), 3(6), 3(7), 3(9) and 11(1) of Regulation 2016/1036 as well as Articles 1, 2(1), 2(4)(2), 3(1), 3(5), 3(7) and 9(3) of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.