# C_2020378EN.01003801.xml

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/38

---

Action brought on 27 August 2020 — Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission

(Case T-540/20)

(2020/C 378/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE (Ain Sukhna, Egypt) (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) Application pursuant to Article 263(4) of the TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/870 of 24 June 2020 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and definitively collecting the provisional countervailing duty imposed on imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating in Egypt, and levying the definitive countervailing duty on the registered imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating in Egypt, in as far as it relates to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) Application pursuant to Article 263(4) of the TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/870 of 24 June 2020 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and definitively collecting the provisional countervailing duty imposed on imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating in Egypt, and levying the definitive countervailing duty on the registered imports of continuous filament glass fibre products originating in Egypt, in as far as it relates to the applicant;

| — | order the defendant and any intervener who may be allowed to support the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and any intervener who may be allowed to support the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to countervail financial contributions granted to the applicant by Chinese public bodies violates Articles 2(a), 2(b), 3(1)(a), 4(2), 4(3) and 28 of the Basic Regulation and the Government of Egypt’s right of defence. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to countervail financial contributions granted to the applicant by Chinese public bodies violates Articles 2(a), 2(b), 3(1)(a), 4(2), 4(3) and 28 of the Basic Regulation and the Government of Egypt’s right of defence.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision regarding the provision of land to the applicant violates its rights of defence and Article 30 of the Basic Regulation as well as Articles 3(2), 5 and 6(d) of the Basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision regarding the provision of land to the applicant violates its rights of defence and Article 30 of the Basic Regulation as well as Articles 3(2), 5 and 6(d) of the Basic Regulation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to countervail the import tariff rebate scheme for imported materials used by Jushi for sales of glass fibre products to its domestic related customer violates Articles 3(1)(a)(ii), 3(2) and 5 of the Basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to countervail the import tariff rebate scheme for imported materials used by Jushi for sales of glass fibre products to its domestic related customer violates Articles 3(1)(a)(ii), 3(2) and 5 of the Basic Regulation.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to countervail the tax treatment of foreign exchange losses violates Articles 3(2) and 4(2)(c) of the Basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to countervail the tax treatment of foreign exchange losses violates Articles 3(2) and 4(2)(c) of the Basic Regulation.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s methodology for the determination of the undercutting margin with regard to the Applicant violates Articles 1(1), 2(d), 8(1), 8(2) and 8(5) of the Basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s methodology for the determination of the undercutting margin with regard to the Applicant violates Articles 1(1), 2(d), 8(1), 8(2) and 8(5) of the Basic Regulation.

---