# C_2012118EN.01002901.xml

| 21.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/29 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 15 February 2012 — Nu Air Compressors and Tools v Commission

(Case T-76/12)

2012/C 118/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nu Air Compressors and Tools SpA (Robassomero, Italy) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8824 final and Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8812 final, both dated 6th December 2011, insofar as they only grant partial refunds of the anti-dumping duties paid by the applicant on imports of Chinese-made compressors applied under Council Regulation (EC) 261/2008 of 17 March 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China( 1 ); |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Maintain in force contested Decisions until the European Commission has adopted measures necessary to comply with any judgment of the General Court, given in the present case; and |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| - | ------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging
—
that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in applying an appropriate and reasonable unrelated EU importer profit margin, thereby failing to establish a reliable export price for the purpose of calculating the correct anti-dumping refund amounts leading to infringements of Articles 2(9) and 18(3) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation( 2 ). | — | that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in applying an appropriate and reasonable unrelated EU importer profit margin, thereby failing to establish a reliable export price for the purpose of calculating the correct anti-dumping refund amounts leading to infringements of Articles 2(9) and 18(3) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation( 2 ). |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in applying an appropriate and reasonable unrelated EU importer profit margin, thereby failing to establish a reliable export price for the purpose of calculating the correct anti-dumping refund amounts leading to infringements of Articles 2(9) and 18(3) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation( 2 ). | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging
—
that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by deducting anti-dumping duties as a cost in the calculation of the export price thereby failing to establish a reliable dumping margin for the purpose of calculating the correct anti-dumping refund amounts and in doing so violated Articles 2(9), 2(11) and 11(10) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation. | — | that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by deducting anti-dumping duties as a cost in the calculation of the export price thereby failing to establish a reliable dumping margin for the purpose of calculating the correct anti-dumping refund amounts and in doing so violated Articles 2(9), 2(11) and 11(10) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by deducting anti-dumping duties as a cost in the calculation of the export price thereby failing to establish a reliable dumping margin for the purpose of calculating the correct anti-dumping refund amounts and in doing so violated Articles 2(9), 2(11) and 11(10) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation. | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging
—
that the European Commission failed to inform the applicant of the necessary requirements for satisfying Article 11(10) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation in a prompt and adequate manner thereby violating its rights of defence, as well as the principle of sound administration established in EU law and provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. | — | that the European Commission failed to inform the applicant of the necessary requirements for satisfying Article 11(10) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation in a prompt and adequate manner thereby violating its rights of defence, as well as the principle of sound administration established in EU law and provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the European Commission failed to inform the applicant of the necessary requirements for satisfying Article 11(10) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation in a prompt and adequate manner thereby violating its rights of defence, as well as the principle of sound administration established in EU law and provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. | | |

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging
—
that in a result, the European Commission unlawfully retained additional amounts of refunds of EU anti-dumping duties legitimately due to the applicant through the above-mentioned infringements of EU law. | — | that in a result, the European Commission unlawfully retained additional amounts of refunds of EU anti-dumping duties legitimately due to the applicant through the above-mentioned infringements of EU law. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | that in a result, the European Commission unlawfully retained additional amounts of refunds of EU anti-dumping duties legitimately due to the applicant through the above-mentioned infringements of EU law. | | |

---

( 1 )  OJ L 81, 20.03.2008, p. 1

( 2 )  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51)

---