# C_2022084EN.01004101.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/41

---

Action brought on 25 November 2021 — Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-748/21)

(2022/C 84/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd (Hangzhou, China), Dingheng New Materials Co., Ltd (Rayong, Thailand), Thai Ding Li New Materials Co., Ltd (Rayong) (represented by: G. Coppo and G. Pregno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1474 (1) of 14 September 2021 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2384 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/271 on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain aluminium foil consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not, published in the Official Journal L 325 of 15 September 2021, insofar as it concerns Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd., Dingheng New Materials Co., Ltd., and Thai Ding Li New Materials Co. Ltd; and, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1474 (1) of 14 September 2021 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2384 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/271 on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain aluminium foil consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not, published in the Official Journal L 325 of 15 September 2021, insofar as it concerns Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd., Dingheng New Materials Co., Ltd., and Thai Ding Li New Materials Co. Ltd; and,

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | By their first plea, the applicants claim that the Contested Regulation is vitiated in law insofar as it concludes an investigation which was initiated — by means of the Initiation Regulation — without the Commission having met the standard of evidence required under Article 13(3) of the Basic Regulation (first limb of the first plea). In fact, the Commission blindly relied on the content of the Request, which is, however, incomplete and significantly flawed being based on unreliable information which the Commission did not verify or complement. Additionally, the applicants claim that the Commission failed to properly address the applicants’ comments on the unlawfulness of the initiation (second limb of the first plea). |
| --- | --- |

1.

By their first plea, the applicants claim that the Contested Regulation is vitiated in law insofar as it concludes an investigation which was initiated — by means of the Initiation Regulation — without the Commission having met the standard of evidence required under Article 13(3) of the Basic Regulation (first limb of the first plea). In fact, the Commission blindly relied on the content of the Request, which is, however, incomplete and significantly flawed being based on unreliable information which the Commission did not verify or complement. Additionally, the applicants claim that the Commission failed to properly address the applicants’ comments on the unlawfulness of the initiation (second limb of the first plea).

| 2. | By their second plea, the applicants claim that the Commission did not provide an adequate statement of reason regarding the existence of the substantive elements listed in Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation, and in particular regarding the requirement relating to the undermining of the remedial effects of the duties, in breach of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 20(2) of the Basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

By their second plea, the applicants claim that the Commission did not provide an adequate statement of reason regarding the existence of the substantive elements listed in Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation, and in particular regarding the requirement relating to the undermining of the remedial effects of the duties, in breach of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 20(2) of the Basic Regulation.

---

(1)  OJ 2021, L 325, p. 6

---