# C_2012389EN.01000702.xml

| 15.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/7 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Action brought on 23 October 2012 — RFA International v Commission

(Case T-466/12)

2012/C 389/12

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: RFA International, LP (Calgary, Canada) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul partially Commission Decisions C(2012) 5577 final, C(2012) 5585 final, C(2012) 5588 final, C(2012) 5595 final, C(2012) 5596 final, C(2012) 5598 final and C(2012) 5611 final of 10 August 2012, insofar as they refuse to reimburse the amounts of anti-dumping duties applied for, save for those amounts, the applications for which had been found inadmissible as lodged after the expiry of a statutory time limit; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging
—
an error in law and manifest error of assessment in the Commission’s finding that a full deduction for SG&A and profit from the export price of the CHEMK Group was warranted, and in the Commission’s related finding that a single economic entity is irrelevant for the calculation of export price (including adjustments to export price) pursuant to Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation( 1 ). To the extent the Commission may have relied on the rejection of the applicant’s claim of existence of a single economic entity, the applicant contends that such rejection is also vitiated by an error in law and/or a manifest error of assessment. | — | an error in law and manifest error of assessment in the Commission’s finding that a full deduction for SG&A and profit from the export price of the CHEMK Group was warranted, and in the Commission’s related finding that a single economic entity is irrelevant for the calculation of export price (including adjustments to export price) pursuant to Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation( 1 ). To the extent the Commission may have relied on the rejection of the applicant’s claim of existence of a single economic entity, the applicant contends that such rejection is also vitiated by an error in law and/or a manifest error of assessment. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | an error in law and manifest error of assessment in the Commission’s finding that a full deduction for SG&A and profit from the export price of the CHEMK Group was warranted, and in the Commission’s related finding that a single economic entity is irrelevant for the calculation of export price (including adjustments to export price) pursuant to Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation( 1 ). To the extent the Commission may have relied on the rejection of the applicant’s claim of existence of a single economic entity, the applicant contends that such rejection is also vitiated by an error in law and/or a manifest error of assessment. | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging
—
a manifest error of assessment in the Commission’s finding that there was a changed circumstance in the sense of Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation, which warranted the application of a different methodology for the calculation of the final dumping margin. The applicant also invokes a consequential breach of Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation in the Commission’s application of the new methodology, which is different from the respective methodology used in the original investigation. | — | a manifest error of assessment in the Commission’s finding that there was a changed circumstance in the sense of Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation, which warranted the application of a different methodology for the calculation of the final dumping margin. The applicant also invokes a consequential breach of Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation in the Commission’s application of the new methodology, which is different from the respective methodology used in the original investigation. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | a manifest error of assessment in the Commission’s finding that there was a changed circumstance in the sense of Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation, which warranted the application of a different methodology for the calculation of the final dumping margin. The applicant also invokes a consequential breach of Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation in the Commission’s application of the new methodology, which is different from the respective methodology used in the original investigation. | | |

---

( 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 L 343, p. 51)

---