22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/39

(Case T-204/17)

(2017/C 161/55)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Alfa Laval Flow Equipment (Kunshan) Co. Ltd (Kunshan, People's Republic of China) (represented by: A. Johansson and C. Dackö, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—Annul in part Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/141 of 26 January 2017 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings, whether or not finished, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (‘the implementing regulation’) insofar as it covers stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings which have a surface roughness average of under 0,8 micrometres on the inside of the tube and pipe butt-welding fittings but not on the outside;

—In the alternative, annul the implementing regulation insofar as it concerns the applicant;

—In the further alternative, annul the implementing regulation in its entirety; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging disregard of the rights of the defence. The applicant submits that the product scope of the investigation was changed between the revised final disclosure document and the adoption of the implementing regulation, to the detriment of the applicant. The applicant submits that the Commission subsequently explained that a material change had been envisaged. The applicant was not given the opportunity of commenting on the change before the regulation entered into force. The applicant claims that the Commission did not, at any stage of the investigation, inform the parties concerned that the surface roughness requirement for products to avoid the application of customs duties could apply to both the products’ interior and exterior surfaces, departing from the European product standards for sanitary fittings. Thus the applicant had the legitimate expectation that the product exclusion corresponds to the stated objective of excluding sanitary fittings, and was thereby deprived of any real opportunity of commenting on the scope of the product exclusion.

2.Second plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the duty to state reasons. The applicant submits that at no stage were reasons given for the distinction which the Commission draws between sanitary fittings with an interior surface roughness of under 0,8 micrometres and an exterior surface roughness of over 0,8 micrometres, on the one hand, and sanitary fittings with both an interior and exterior surface roughness of under 0,8 micrometres, on the other. The applicant claims that the introduction of such a distinction means that the grounds given by the Commission for the product exclusion are illogical and inconsistent with the product scope in Article 1 of the implementing regulation.

3.Third plea in law, alleging failure to fulfil the obligation to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case. The applicant submits that the distinction made between different sanitary fittings does not appear to have been preceded by a careful examination but appears merely to be the result of an unsubstantiated request from a party involved at a much later stage of the investigation. The applicant claims that, by failing to investigate further the consequences of such a distinction and how it affects the achievement of the objective stated in the recitals of the implementing regulation, the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligation to examine carefully and impartially the relevant aspects.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. The applicant submits that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment when, with the intention of excluding sanitary fittings which do not compete with the EU industry’s industrial fittings, it laid down the criteria for exclusion leading to the exclusion of only a small part of the sanitary fittings used inside the EU. The majority of sanitary fittings are thus subject to customs duties even though they are not in competition with the EU industry products. The applicant claims that the Commission has drawn clearly incorrect conclusions from the material received and has also relied on incorrect information.