EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62009TN0528
Case T-528/09: Action brought on 30 December 2009 — Hubei Xinyegang Steel v Council
Case T-528/09: Action brought on 30 December 2009 — Hubei Xinyegang Steel v Council
Case T-528/09: Action brought on 30 December 2009 — Hubei Xinyegang Steel v Council
OJ C 51, 27.2.2010, p. 45–45
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
27.2.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 51/45 |
Action brought on 30 December 2009 — Hubei Xinyegang Steel v Council
(Case T-528/09)
2010/C 51/82
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, N. Niejahr, Q. Azau and A. MacGregor, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul the Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 of 24 September 2009 imposing a definitive anti–dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) to the extent that it imposes anti–dumping duties on exports by the applicant and collects provisional duties imposed on such exports or, alternatively, to annul the said regulation to the extent that it collects the provisional duties imposed on the applicant; |
|
— |
Order the Council to pay its own costs and the costs of the applicant in connection with these proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
By means of present application the applicant seeks the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 of 24 September 2009 imposing a definitive anti–dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China, in as far as it concerns the applicant.
In support of its application the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.
First, it claims that the Council made a manifest error of appraisal of the facts when identifying the ‘products concerned’ by defining over–simplified product categories. In addition, the applicant submits that the Commission made an inappropriate comparison with US-produced goods.
Second, the applicant contends that the Council breached Article 9(5) of the basic regulation (2) by withdrawing the applicant’s IT status in the contested regulation although that status had initially been granted to the applicant by the Commission during the administrative procedure prior to the publication of the provisional regulation (3).
Third, the applicant claims that the Council infringed Articles 9(4) and 10(2) of the basic regulation by imposing a definitive duty and deciding to definitively collect the provisional duty imposed on exports of the “products concerned” by the applicant to the EU, because these decisions were based on manifest errors of assessment as to the existence of a threat of material injury.
(1) OJ L 262, p. 19
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1)
(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 289/2009 of 7 April 2009 imposing a provisional anti–dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People's Republic of China, OJ L 94, p. 48