EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TN0228
Case T-228/17: Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry v Commission
Case T-228/17: Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry v Commission
Case T-228/17: Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry v Commission
IO C 195, 19.6.2017, p. 35–36
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
19.6.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 195/35 |
Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry v Commission
(Case T-228/17)
(2017/C 195/49)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd (Wenzhou, China) (represented by: S. Hirsbrunner, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/141 of 26 January 2017 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings, whether or not finished, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (OJ 2017, L 22, p. 14) insofar as it concerns the applicant; |
— |
order the Commission, and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission in the course of the proceeding, to pay the legal costs of the applicant. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed various manifest errors of assessment when considering that stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings (SSBWF) of US and EU technical standards are interchangeable
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment, and failed to provide an adequate reasoning with regard to the adjustment of the normal value and argued in a contradictory manner.
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the determination of the period to be considered is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the procedure leading up to the contested regulation was not in compliance with general principles of EU law, such as the principles of sound administration, transparency and the applicant’s rights of defence.
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation, adopted on 26 January 2017, wrongly establishes the applicant’s anti-dumping duty in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Regulation which set out exceptional, analogue country methodology for calculating the normal value of imports from the People’s Republic of China, notwithstanding that the EU’s right to apply such exceptional treatment expired on 11 December 2016.
|