201806010121915542018/C 211/352542018TC21120180618EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180423282921

(Case T-254/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (Beijing, China) and 9 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) No 2018/140 of 29 January 2018 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain cast iron articles originating in the People’s Republic of China and terminating the investigation on imports of certain cast iron articles originating in India (OJ 2018 L 25, p. 6), 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 applicants rely on six pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 3(7) and 17(2) of the basic Regulation and the principle of good administration, inter alia by using unreliable import data, unreliable macroeconomic injury data and unreliable profitability data, and by not allowing other interested parties to comment on the final selection of the sample of Union producers.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation inter alia by failing to take account of the absence of a coincidence in time and by failing to ensure that injury caused by other factors is not attributed to the Chinese imports.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the rights of defence of the applicants and Articles 6(7), 19(1)-(3), 20(2) and 20(4) of the basic Regulation inter alia by refusing to provide any access whatsoever to the injury calculations, the price effects and injury elimination level calculations and the normal value determination, by even refusing to provide the requested data in the form of an aggregated version, and by failing to disclose various relevant information, despite having been repeatedly requested to do so.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that by failing to take into account all the characteristics of the product control numbers in its price comparison, by failing to provide the necessary information with respect to the product characteristics other than those reflected in the original product control numbers, and by erroneously rejecting the request for adjustment to the normal value address the irregularities resulting from the low volume of production in India, the Commission violated Articles 2(10), 3(2)(a), 3(3) and 9(4) of the basic Regulation and the principle of good administration.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that by making an upward adjustment to the normal value for indirect taxes, the Commission violated Article 2(10)(b) and Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging that by relying on data from only one Indian producer for the determination of the selling, general and administrative costs (‘SG&A’) and profit used for the constructed normal value, instead of using all relevant information available with respect to the analogue country, the Commission violated Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.