# C_2021382EN.01002201.xml

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/22

---

Appeal brought on 2 August 2021 by China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products, Cangzhou Qinghong Foundry Co. Ltd, Botou City Qinghong Foundry Co. Ltd, Lingshou County Boyuan Foundry Co. Ltd, Handan Qunshan Foundry Co. Ltd, Heping Cast Co. Ltd Yi County, Hong Guang Handan Cast Foundry Co. Ltd, Shanxi Yuansheng Casting and Forging Industrial Co. Ltd, Botou City Wangwu Town Tianlong Casting Factory, Tangxian Hongyue Machinery Accessory Foundry Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 19 May 2021 in Case T-254/18, China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products and Others v Commission

(Case C-478/21 P)

(2021/C 382/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME), Cangzhou Qinghong Foundry Co. Ltd, Botou City Qinghong Foundry Co. Ltd, Lingshou County Boyuan Foundry Co. Ltd, Handan Qunshan Foundry Co. Ltd, Heping Cast Co. Ltd Yi County, Hong Guang Handan Cast Foundry Co. Ltd, Shanxi Yuansheng Casting and Forging Industrial Co. Ltd, Botou City Wangwu Town Tianlong Casting Factory, Tangxian Hongyue Machinery Accessory Foundry Co. Ltd (represented by: R. Antonini, avvocato, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, EJ Picardie, Fondatel Lecomte, Fonderies Dechaumont, Fundiciones de Odena, SA, Heinrich Meier Eisengießerei GmbH & Co. KG, Saint-Gobain Construction Products UK Ltd, Saint-Gobain Pam, Ulefos Oy

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | grant the form of order sought by the appellants in their application made to the General Court and annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/140 of 29 January 2018 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain cast iron articles originating in the People’s Republic of China and terminating the investigation on imports of certain cast iron articles originating in India (1), in so far as it relates to the CCCME, the individual companies and the members concerned; and |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the form of order sought by the appellants in their application made to the General Court and annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/140 of 29 January 2018 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain cast iron articles originating in the People’s Republic of China and terminating the investigation on imports of certain cast iron articles originating in India (1), in so far as it relates to the CCCME, the individual companies and the members concerned; and

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice, including those of the Appellants, and order the interveners to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice, including those of the Appellants, and order the interveners to bear their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First ground of appeal. The General Court erred in not finding a violation of Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation (2) and the principle of good administration in relation to the import data.

Second ground of appeal. The General Court erred in not finding a violation of Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation and the principle of good administration as there was a failure to base the injury and causation determinations on positive evidence and an objective examination.

Third ground of appeal. The General Court erred in finding that no segmented analysis was required to fulfil the obligations under Articles 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation.

Fourth ground of appeal. The General Court erred in not finding a violation of Articles 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation in relation to the lack of price undercutting for a part of Union sales.

Fifth ground of appeal. The General Court applied the wrong legal standard in finding that the third plea in law was partly inadmissible. The General Court erred in not finding a violation of Articles 6(7), 19(1), 19(2), 20(2) and 20(4) of the basic Regulation as well as the rights of the defence regarding the requirement to disclose essential facts and considerations.

---

(1)  OJ 2018 L 25, p. 6.

(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).

---