# C_2012165EN.01003401.xml

| 9.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/34 |
| -------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 10 April 2012 — CHEMK and KF v Council

(Case T-169/12)

2012/C 165/56

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) (Chelyabinsk, Russia); and Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) (Novokuznetsk, Russia) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 60/2012 of 16 January 2012 terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of ferro-silicon originating, inter alia, in Russia (OJ L 22, p. 1), in so far as it affects the applicants; and |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Order the defendant to pay the cost incurred by the present proceedings. |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging
—
that the Institutions breached Article 11(9) in connection with Article 2(12) of ‘the basic Regulation’( 1 ) by failing to establish the amount of the dumping margin of the applicants. In addition, or in the alternative, the Institutions erred in law and exceeded their margin of discretion in their powers of prospective assessment under Article 11(3) by allowing the findings on lasting nature of changed circumstances to subsume the dumping findings, vitiating the findings on the changed dumping margin in the interim review and extending the scope of analysis of continuation of dumping so as to cover/affect the findings on dumping margin. Lastly, the Institutions infringed the applicants’ rights of defence with respect to dumping by failing to disclose their final calculation of dumping to the applicants. | — | that the Institutions breached Article 11(9) in connection with Article 2(12) of ‘the basic Regulation’( 1 ) by failing to establish the amount of the dumping margin of the applicants. In addition, or in the alternative, the Institutions erred in law and exceeded their margin of discretion in their powers of prospective assessment under Article 11(3) by allowing the findings on lasting nature of changed circumstances to subsume the dumping findings, vitiating the findings on the changed dumping margin in the interim review and extending the scope of analysis of continuation of dumping so as to cover/affect the findings on dumping margin. Lastly, the Institutions infringed the applicants’ rights of defence with respect to dumping by failing to disclose their final calculation of dumping to the applicants. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the Institutions breached Article 11(9) in connection with Article 2(12) of ‘the basic Regulation’( 1 ) by failing to establish the amount of the dumping margin of the applicants. In addition, or in the alternative, the Institutions erred in law and exceeded their margin of discretion in their powers of prospective assessment under Article 11(3) by allowing the findings on lasting nature of changed circumstances to subsume the dumping findings, vitiating the findings on the changed dumping margin in the interim review and extending the scope of analysis of continuation of dumping so as to cover/affect the findings on dumping margin. Lastly, the Institutions infringed the applicants’ rights of defence with respect to dumping by failing to disclose their final calculation of dumping to the applicants. | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging
—
that the Institutions made a manifest error of assessment in concluding that an adjustment for SG&A costs and profit of RFAI had to be made to the applicants’ export price and in the related finding that the applicants and RFAI did not constitute a single economic entity. | — | that the Institutions made a manifest error of assessment in concluding that an adjustment for SG&A costs and profit of RFAI had to be made to the applicants’ export price and in the related finding that the applicants and RFAI did not constitute a single economic entity. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the Institutions made a manifest error of assessment in concluding that an adjustment for SG&A costs and profit of RFAI had to be made to the applicants’ export price and in the related finding that the applicants and RFAI did not constitute a single economic entity. | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging
—
that the Institutions breached Article 11(3), third subparagraph and/or made manifest errors of assessment in concluding that there was no lasting change of circumstances with respect to the reduced dumping margin of the applicants. | — | that the Institutions breached Article 11(3), third subparagraph and/or made manifest errors of assessment in concluding that there was no lasting change of circumstances with respect to the reduced dumping margin of the applicants. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the Institutions breached Article 11(3), third subparagraph and/or made manifest errors of assessment in concluding that there was no lasting change of circumstances with respect to the reduced dumping margin of the applicants. | | |

---

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

---