# C_2022084EN.01004301.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/43

---

Action brought on 21 December 2021 — TDK Foil Italy v Commission

(Case T-788/21)

(2022/C 84/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TDK Foil Italy SpA (Rozzano, Italy) (represented by: F. Di Gianni, A. Scalini and G. Pregno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 (1) of 8 October 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China, insofar as it includes in the scope of the anti-dumping duty raw aluminium foil used to produce high-voltage anode and tab foils for aluminium electrolytic capacitors; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 (1) of 8 October 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China, insofar as it includes in the scope of the anti-dumping duty raw aluminium foil used to produce high-voltage anode and tab foils for aluminium electrolytic capacitors;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 1(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 of 8 October 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China insofar it illegally includes High Purity Aluminium Foil in the scope of the anti-dumping duty, and; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 1(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 of 8 October 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China insofar it illegally includes High Purity Aluminium Foil in the scope of the anti-dumping duty, and;

| — | in any event, order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceeding. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceeding.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that, by including High Purity Aluminium Foil within the scope of the measures, the Commission had committed a manifest error of assessment of the evidence provided during the investigation and infringed the principle of proportionality. In particular, the applicant submits that there is robust evidence of the absence of Union production of High Purity Aluminium Foil. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that, by including High Purity Aluminium Foil within the scope of the measures, the Commission had committed a manifest error of assessment of the evidence provided during the investigation and infringed the principle of proportionality. In particular, the applicant submits that there is robust evidence of the absence of Union production of High Purity Aluminium Foil.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violates Article 1(1) of the Basic Regulation insofar as it applied anti-dumping duties against imports of a product which could not have caused injury to the Union industry, as well as in absence of the Union interest. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violates Article 1(1) of the Basic Regulation insofar as it applied anti-dumping duties against imports of a product which could not have caused injury to the Union industry, as well as in absence of the Union interest.

---

(1)  OJ 2021, L 359, p. 6

---