# C_2016038EN.01006501.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/65

---

Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel v Commission

(Case T-675/15)

(2016/C 038/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd (Taiyuan, China) (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, and N. Niejahr, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 of 26 August 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (OJ 2015 L 224, p. 10), to the extent that it imposes anti-dumping duties on exports by the applicant and collects provisional duties imposed on such exports; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 of 26 August 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (OJ 2015 L 224, p. 10), to the extent that it imposes anti-dumping duties on exports by the applicant and collects provisional duties imposed on such exports; and

| — | order the Commission to pay its own costs and the costs of the applicant in connection with these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay its own costs and the costs of the applicant in connection with these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the second sub-paragraph of Article 2(7)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1225/2009 (1) (the ‘Basic Regulation’) by identifying and selecting the United States of America (‘US’) as the appropriate analogue country in this case. This selection was based on an erroneous interpretation and application of the second sub-paragraph of Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation as well as on manifest errors of appraisal of the facts. Alternatively, the Commission manifestly misapplied Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation by failing to make certain required adjustments to normal value despite selecting the US as the analogue country. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the second sub-paragraph of Article 2(7)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1225/2009 (1) (the ‘Basic Regulation’) by identifying and selecting the United States of America (‘US’) as the appropriate analogue country in this case. This selection was based on an erroneous interpretation and application of the second sub-paragraph of Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation as well as on manifest errors of appraisal of the facts. Alternatively, the Commission manifestly misapplied Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation by failing to make certain required adjustments to normal value despite selecting the US as the analogue country.

1

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(10) of the Basic Regulation by failing to make the required adjustment for internal transport costs of a US exporting producer pursuant to section (k) of this provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(10) of the Basic Regulation by failing to make the required adjustment for internal transport costs of a US exporting producer pursuant to section (k) of this provision.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that Commission infringed Articles 3(2), 3(6) and 3(7) of the Basic Regulation. The Commission’s analysis of certain injury factors and of causation is vitiated by manifest errors of appraisal of the facts and/or is not in line with the Commission’s duty to examine data with care and impartiality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that Commission infringed Articles 3(2), 3(6) and 3(7) of the Basic Regulation. The Commission’s analysis of certain injury factors and of causation is vitiated by manifest errors of appraisal of the facts and/or is not in line with the Commission’s duty to examine data with care and impartiality.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).

1

---