# C_2022294EN.01003601.xml

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/36

---

Action brought on 9 June 2022 — PT Indonesia Ruipu Nickel and Chrome Alloy v Commission

(Case T-348/22)

(2022/C 294/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PT Indonesia Ruipu Nickel and Chrome Alloy (Jakarta, Indonesia) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/433 of 15 March 2022 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in India and Indonesia and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in India and Indonesia (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/433 of 15 March 2022 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in India and Indonesia and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in India and Indonesia (1); 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 three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 2(a) and (b), 3(1)(a), 4(3) and (5) and 28 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 (2) (‘basic Regulation’) by countervailing schemes that were not countervailable subsidies within the meaning of the basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 2(a) and (b), 3(1)(a), 4(3) and (5) and 28 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 (2) (‘basic Regulation’) by countervailing schemes that were not countervailable subsidies within the meaning of the basic Regulation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission used erroneous benchmarks in the determination of benefit and calculation of the amount of the countervailable subsidies, in violation of Articles 3(2), 6(a), (b), and (d), and 15(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission used erroneous benchmarks in the determination of benefit and calculation of the amount of the countervailable subsidies, in violation of Articles 3(2), 6(a), (b), and (d), and 15(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to allocate the amount of subsidy concerning the provision of nickel ore over the production of the product concerned during the investigation period, in violation of Articles 7(2) and 15(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to allocate the amount of subsidy concerning the provision of nickel ore over the production of the product concerned during the investigation period, in violation of Articles 7(2) and 15(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation.

---

(1)  OJ 2022 L 88, p. 24.

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 55).

---