EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/48

(Case T-67/14)

2014/C 112/61

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viraj Profiles Ltd (Maharashtra, India) (represented by: V. Akritidis and Y. Melin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1106/2013 of 5 November 2013 (OJ L 298, p. 1) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in India, as far as it applies to Viraj Profiles Limited;

—Order the Council, and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Council in the course of the proceedings, to bear the costs of these 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 that the cost of production calculated in the Contested Regulation has been adjusted in a way that is manifestly erroneous, in breach of Article 2(1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (11) and (12) of the basic regulation. The EU institutions have applied an upward adjustment under a methodology which when followed yields an adjustment lower than the one disclosed by the Commission. The adjustment also includes items that should not be included in the cost of production of the Applicant. The dumping margin calculated on the basis of this erroneous methodology breaches Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the finding that the injury suffered by the Union industry is caused by Indian imports is manifestly erroneous, in that it does not consider the impact of Chinese imports, which were the main source of injury in the period considered and broke the causal link between dumped Indian imports and the injury, and the EU institutions performed no non-attribution analysis, in breach of Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to examine the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence on causation provided in the complaint justifying the initiation of the investigation in breach of Articles 5(2), (3), (7) and 9(5) of the basic Regulation.