24.10.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/47

Action brought on 2 September 2016 — Remag Metallhandel and Jaschinsky v Commission

(Case T-631/16)

(2016/C 392/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Remag Metallhandel GmbH (Steyr, Austria) and Werner Jaschinsky (St. Ulrich bei Steyr, Austria) (represented by: M. Lux, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that, given OLAF’s request and subsequent insistence that the authorities of the Member States recover anti-dumping duties for all consignments of silicon metal exported from Taiwan to the EU in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 398/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2004 L 66) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 467/2010 of 25 May 2010 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of silicon consigned from the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not (OJ 2010 L131), although no or insufficient proof has been provided by OLAF that the silicon imported by Remag from Taiwan is of Chinese origin, the Court should:

—	order the defendant to pay damages to the applicants as specified in the application, together with default interest at the rate of 8 % annually, and

—	order that the costs of the proceedings before Court be borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that by requesting Member States to recover anti-dumping duties before the investigation had confirmed the origin of the goods in order to avoid the allegedly owed duties from becoming time-barred, OLAF instructed and incited national administrations to infringe Articles 220(1) and 221(1) of the Community Customs Code (CCC).

Second plea in law, alleging that by disregarding in its recovery request the fact that a transhipment of silicon from China does not prove that the silicon is of Chines origin, OLAF infringed the principle of sound administration and the obligation to base its conclusions on substantiated evidence.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that by claiming that all exports of silicon from Taiwan concerned good originating in China, OLAF disregarded the burden of proof for non-preferential origin.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that by claiming that the processing taking place in Taiwan was insufficient for conferring Taiwanese origin without taking into account the use of the processed silicon, OLAF disregarded the rules of origin as interpreted by the European Court of Justice.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicant’s rights of defence.