This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020TN0725
Case T-725/20: Action brought on 14 December 2020 — Guangdong Haomei New Materials and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology v Commission
Case T-725/20: Action brought on 14 December 2020 — Guangdong Haomei New Materials and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology v Commission
Case T-725/20: Action brought on 14 December 2020 — Guangdong Haomei New Materials and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology v Commission
OJ C 44, 8.2.2021, p. 54–56
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
8.2.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 44/54 |
Action brought on 14 December 2020 — Guangdong Haomei New Materials and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology v Commission
(Case T-725/20)
(2021/C 44/77)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicants: Guangdong Haomei New Materials Co. Ltd (Qingyuan, China), Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology Co. Ltd (Yuan Tan Town, China) (represented by: M. Maresca, C. Malinconico, D. Guardamagna, M. Guardamagna, D. Maresca, A. Cerruti, A. Malinconico and G. La Malfa Ribolla, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1428 of 12 October 2020, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 13 October 2020, imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on aluminium extrusions originating in the People’s Republic of China imported by the applicants and, in the alternative, annul the basic regulation (Regulation 1036/2016) and order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on eight pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging infringement of the TFEU and the legal rules governing the application of the Treaty, infringement of the articles of the basic regulation relating to the obligation to ascertain specifically that the requirements for dumping have been met, infringement of the principles of due process, audi alteram partem, and good administration referred to in Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and of the principle that the best information available must be used, infringement of essential procedural requirements, misuse of powers due to the generic nature of the objections and failure genuinely to verify the information provided in the spirit of cooperation.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the TFEU and the legal rules governing the application of the Treaty, and the absence of dumping with regard to the criteria set out in the basic regulation, infringement of the articles of the basic regulation relating to the determination of dumping margins (Article 2, paragraph 6a in particular), incorrect identification of the ‘normal’ price of the goods under investigation, application of provisional duties not on account of the (unestablished) liability of the exporters but in reaction to the overall structure of the Chinese economy, misuse of powers, and failure to investigate and to state reasons.
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging absence of injury, infringement of the basic regulation (Articles 1, 2 and 7(1)(c)), failure to investigate, manifest error and distortion of the facts relating to market shares, absence of a causal link, and failure to take account of the absence of variation in the total flow of imports.
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging absence of a causal link between dumping and injury, infringement of Articles 1, 2 and 7(1)(c) of the basic regulation, failure to take account of the impact of COVID-19 on commercial flows, on the purpose of the anti-dumping procedure and on the adoption of the provisional duties, incomplete and incorrect assessment of the effects of other factors, and failure to assess the applicants’ observations.
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging unlawfulness stemming from the registration regulation.
|
6. |
Sixth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment in determining the level of the measures, infringement of Article 14(5) of the basic regulation from another perspective, incorrect and arbitrary identification of the amount of the duties, failure to investigate, manifest error of assessment, and misuse of powers.
|
7. |
Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (‘GATT’) and, in the alternative, the unlawfulness of the basic regulation if it is not interpreted in accordance with international agreements.
|
8. |
Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of the European Convention of Human Rights in relation to the procedure imposing a penalty equivalent to a penalty under criminal law as concerns the effects produced on the exporting undertakings.
|