25.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/49

(Case T-487/14)

2014/C 282/64

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) (Chelyabinsk, Russia) and Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) (Novokuznetsk, Russia) (represented by: B. Evtimov and M. Krestiyanova, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—Annul Commission’s Implementing Regulation (EU) No 360/2014 of 9 April 2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China and Russia (the Contested Regulation), following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1) (the Basic Regulation), (OJ L 107, p. 13);

—Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging an error in law, resulting from an erroneous interpretation of Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation and/or a manifest error of assessment in the Commission’s finding that a single economic entity is irrelevant for the calculation of a constructed export price (including adjustments to export price) pursuant to Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation, and in the consequential finding that a full deduction for all SG&A costs and profit of RFA International from the constructed export price of the CHEMK Group was warranted. To the extent that the Commission may have relied in the above findings on the rejection of the applicants’ claim of existence of a single economic entity, the applicants contend that such rejection is also vitiated by an error in law and/or a manifest error of assessment.

2.Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 11(10) of the Basic Regulation and a related breach of Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation in the Commission’s deduction of the anti-dumping duties from the applicants’ constructed export price. The breach of Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation results from the Commission’s application of a new methodology for assessing whether the duties are duly reflected in the resale price, which was different from the methodology used in the last interim review investigation which led to the duty in force against the applicants.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s findings on an alleged likelihood of recurrence of injurious dumping in relation to Russian imports is flawed by series of manifest errors of assessment of facts and evidence.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 343, p. 51)