# C_2019206EN.01008702.xml

| 17.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/87 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/87

---

Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan v Commission

(Case T-242/19)

(2019/C 206/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan Co. Ltd (Kunshan, China) (represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/73 of 17 January 2019 (1), in as far as it relates to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/73 of 17 January 2019 (1), in as far as it relates to the applicant; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment in determining that the aluminium raw material purchases of the applicant’s group would have been subject to significant state interference and would have not substantially reflected market values pursuant to the first indent of Article 2(7)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 (2). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment in determining that the aluminium raw material purchases of the applicant’s group would have been subject to significant state interference and would have not substantially reflected market values pursuant to the first indent of Article 2(7)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 (2).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the defendant made a manifest error of assessment in determining that the applicant’s group would have been subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system pursuant to the third indent of Article 2(7)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the defendant made a manifest error of assessment in determining that the applicant’s group would have been subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system pursuant to the third indent of Article 2(7)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the chapeau of Article 2(10) as well as Articles 2(10)(d)(i) and (ii) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 since it would have failed to carry out a fair comparison by not adjusting normal value for the differences in level of trade between export prices and normal value and by not providing the applicant with the information necessary for the applicant to quantify its adjustment claim. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the chapeau of Article 2(10) as well as Articles 2(10)(d)(i) and (ii) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 since it would have failed to carry out a fair comparison by not adjusting normal value for the differences in level of trade between export prices and normal value and by not providing the applicant with the information necessary for the applicant to quantify its adjustment claim.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 3(2), 3(3) and 3(6) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 by failing to compare, for the purpose of the undercutting and underselling calculations, the prices of imports with the price of the like product produced by the European Union industry at the same level of trade and at the point where the goods enter into competition with each other. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 3(2), 3(3) and 3(6) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 by failing to compare, for the purpose of the undercutting and underselling calculations, the prices of imports with the price of the like product produced by the European Union industry at the same level of trade and at the point where the goods enter into competition with each other.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/73 of 17 January 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 16, 18.1.2019, p. 108).

(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 L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21).

---