Action brought on 5 March 2020 — Guangxi Xin Fu Yuan v Commission

(Case T-144/20)

(2020/C 161/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Guangxi Xin Fu Yuan Co. Ltd (Bobai, Chine) (represented by: J. Cornelis and T. Zuber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2131 of 28 November 2019 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1198 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11 (2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

—	order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 13 (3) in conjunction with Articles 5 (10) and 5 (11) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (‘basic Regulation’), along with Articles 6.1, 6.2 and 12.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, the principle of non-discrimination and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations by not including the Applicant in the exhaustive list of subject exporters in the regulation initiating the anti-circumvention investigation and then subsequently expanding the scope of the investigation to also cover the Applicant.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not have a legal basis for including the applicant in the Contested Regulation, as Article 13 (3) basic Regulation does not cover the imposition of anti-circumvention measures based on a mere risk of circumvention and moreover, requires the prior registration of all subject imports. In addition, the reasoning that the Commission did provide is logically flawed, unsubstantiated and disregards essential evidence and therefore represents a manifest error of assessment.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the rights of defence of the applicant and violated the principle of non-discrimination by basing its final decision on two new factual elements on which the applicant had no opportunity to comment during the review investigation.