Action brought on 28 July 2020 — Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission

(Case T-480/20)

(2020/C 304/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE (Ain Sukhna, Egypt), Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE (Ain Sukhna) (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776 of 12 June 2020 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China and Egypt (1) and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China and Egypt, in as far as it relates to the applicants;

—	order the Commission and any intervener who may be allowed to support 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.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s methodology for calculating the applicants’ subsidy margin violates Articles 1(1), 5(1), 6, 12(1)(c) and 24(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union. (2)

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to countervail financial contributions granted by Chinese public bodies violates Articles 2(a), 2(b), 3(1)(a), 4(2) and 4(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision regarding the provisions of land to Jushi violates the applicants’ rights of defence and Article 30 as well as Articles 3(2), 5 and 6(d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to countervail the import tariff rebate scheme for imported materials for Jushi violates Articles 3(1)(a)(ii), 3(2) and 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to countervail the tax treatment of foreign exchange losses violates Articles 3(2) and 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037.

6.	Sixth plea in law alleging that the Commission’s methodology for the determination of the undercutting margin with regard to the applicants violates Articles 1(1), 2(d), 8(1), 8(2) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037.

(1) OJ 2020 L 189, p. 1.

(2) Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (codification) (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 55).