Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62020TN0440

Case T-440/20: Action brought on 10 July 2020 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission

OJ C 297, 7.9.2020, p. 44–45 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
10/07/2020
Date lodged:
10/07/2020
Author:
General Court
Form:
Judicial information
Authentic language:
English
Type of procedure:
Action for annulment
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Case affecting:
Instruments cited in case law:
Link

7.9.2020   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/44

Action brought on 10 July 2020 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission

(Case T-440/20)

(2020/C 297/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India), Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/527 of 15 April 2020 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India as regards Jindal Saw Limited following the judgment of the General Court in T-301/16;

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and of the general principle of non-retroactivity.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of non-retroactivity and the general principle of legal certainty.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and Article 264 TFEU.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and Article 5(1) and 5(4) TEU.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 103 of the Union Customs Code and Article 296 TFEU.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the Commission to impose registration of Jindal’s imports and infringement of Article 14(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.
Top