# C_2020222EN.01003401.xml

| 6.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/34

---

Action brought on 11 May 2020 — Zhejiang Hangtong Machinery Manufacture and Ningbo Hi-Tech Zone Tongcheng Auto Parts v Commission

(Case T-278/20)

(2020/C 222/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Zhejiang Hangtong Machinery Manufacture Co. Ltd (Taizhou, Chine), Ningbo Hi-Tech Zone Tongcheng Auto Parts Co. Ltd (Ningbo, Chine) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and P. Billiet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the Contested Regulation in so far as the applicants are concerned; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Contested Regulation in so far as the applicants are concerned; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants request the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/353 of 3 March 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of steel road wheels originating in the People’s Republic of China (1).

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors in law and the assessment of the facts and adopted a cyclical reasoning by (1) concluding that the applicants persistently failed to materially cooperate with the Commission and, for that reason, using Article 17(4) of the Basic Regulation (2); (2) finding that the applicants had requested an individual dumping margin as opposed to being a sampled exporting producer under Article 17(1)(2) of the Basic Regulation, thereby also violating Article 6 of the Basic Regulation; and (3) imposing on the applicants the maximum punitive residual anti-dumping duty intended for non-cooperating parties or parties that failed to make themselves known, thereby also violating Articles 2, 3 and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation and the principles of legitimate expectations, good administration, non-discrimination and proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors in law and the assessment of the facts and adopted a cyclical reasoning by (1) concluding that the applicants persistently failed to materially cooperate with the Commission and, for that reason, using Article 17(4) of the Basic Regulation (2); (2) finding that the applicants had requested an individual dumping margin as opposed to being a sampled exporting producer under Article 17(1)(2) of the Basic Regulation, thereby also violating Article 6 of the Basic Regulation; and (3) imposing on the applicants the maximum punitive residual anti-dumping duty intended for non-cooperating parties or parties that failed to make themselves known, thereby also violating Articles 2, 3 and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation and the principles of legitimate expectations, good administration, non-discrimination and proportionality.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors in law and the assessment of the facts, infringed the principle of good administration, failed to provide adequate reasoning and offered erroneous and contradictory reasoning in (1) applying the concept of ‘facts available’ to the applicants; and (2) failing to take into account the applicants’ (a) normal value and (b) export price or alternative methods for establishing the applicants’ export price for their dumping margin calculations, contrary to Articles 2(6a), (8), (10) and (11), 3, 6, 9(4) and 18(1) and (3) of the Basic Regulation; and Articles 2, 3, 6(6) and (8) as well as Annex II(3) of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors in law and the assessment of the facts, infringed the principle of good administration, failed to provide adequate reasoning and offered erroneous and contradictory reasoning in (1) applying the concept of ‘facts available’ to the applicants; and (2) failing to take into account the applicants’ (a) normal value and (b) export price or alternative methods for establishing the applicants’ export price for their dumping margin calculations, contrary to Articles 2(6a), (8), (10) and (11), 3, 6, 9(4) and 18(1) and (3) of the Basic Regulation; and Articles 2, 3, 6(6) and (8) as well as Annex II(3) of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the applicants’ rights of defence by (1) refusing to calculate and disclose their normal value contrary to Articles 20(2) and (4) of the Basic Regulation; and Article 12.2 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement; and (2) not disclosing the information it used for the calculation of the applicants’ dumping and injury margins. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the applicants’ rights of defence by (1) refusing to calculate and disclose their normal value contrary to Articles 20(2) and (4) of the Basic Regulation; and Article 12.2 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement; and (2) not disclosing the information it used for the calculation of the applicants’ dumping and injury margins.

---

(1)  OJ 2020 L 65, p. 9.

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).

---