22.8.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/40

Action brought on 20 June 2016 — Foshan Lihua Ceramic v Commission

(Case T-310/16)

(2016/C 305/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd (Foshan City, China) (represented by: B. Spinoit and D. Philippe, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2016)2136 final of 15 April 2016 rejecting a request for a new exporting producer treatment with regard to the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the sample exception applied by the Commission infringes Articles 11(5) and 11(4) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community as well as Article 9.5 of the WTO-Agreement

2.	Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of equal treatment, as the Commission recently applied the new exporter review provisions of Article 11(4) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 with regards to a case involving a Korean exporter.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of factual assessment.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicant’s fundamental right of defence. The Applicant puts forward that the Commission refers to and bases its decision on (i) the existence of a company which cannot and has not exported during the original investigation period and which cannot and is not a legal, corporate linkage to other exporters; (ii) information to which the Applicant had never access and could never comment, and (iii) alleged events in a hearing for which no record or minutes exist.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging a misuse of power, as the Commission based its decision on an alleged discrepancy of, on the one hand, the audited production figures after the original investigation period given by the Applicant, and, on the other hand, commercially influenced website data.

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of legal assessment as the Commission based its decision on legal concepts which do exist neither in law nor in practice.

Seventh plea in law, alleging a motivation based not on facts but on assumptions and a violation of the right to be heard. First, the Applicant puts forward that points 17 to 22 of the contested decision contain manifest errors of assessment based on pure unfounded assumptions. Second, according to the Applicant, the fact that important and substantial facts and arguments submitted by the Applicant are totally ignored and disregarded is a violation of the Applicant’s right to an ‘effective’ hearing by the Commission.