# C_2023223EN.01003802.xml

| 26.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/38

---

Action brought on 3 May 2023 — Akgün Seramik and Others v Commission

(Case T-231/23)

(2023/C 223/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Akgün Seramik Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Pazaryeri, Türkiye) and 14 others (represented by: F. Di Gianni, A. Scalini and G. Coppo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/265 of 9 February 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tiles originating in India and Türkiye (1) (Contested Regulation) insofar as the applicants are concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/265 of 9 February 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tiles originating in India and Türkiye (1) (Contested Regulation) insofar as the applicants are concerned;

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

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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 Contested Regulation violated Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) (Basic Regulation) insofar as the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the Union industry suffered material injury. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violated Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) (Basic Regulation) insofar as the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the Union industry suffered material injury.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violated Article 3(6) of the Basic Regulation insofar as the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that imports from the countries concerned caused injury to the dominant Union industry. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violated Article 3(6) of the Basic Regulation insofar as the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that imports from the countries concerned caused injury to the dominant Union industry.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violated Article 4(1) of the Basic Regulation insofar as the Commission carried out an injury analysis not based on the major proportion of total Union production within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Basic Regulation, read in the light of Article 4(1) of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violated Article 4(1) of the Basic Regulation insofar as the Commission carried out an injury analysis not based on the major proportion of total Union production within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Basic Regulation, read in the light of Article 4(1) of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violated Article 2(9) and 2(10) of the Basic Regulation inasmuch as (i) the Commission erroneously deducted the sales, general and administrative expenses and the profit of Bien & Qua’s related trader from the export price, and alternatively (ii) the Commission, by not applying the same deductions on the normal value, failed to carry out a fair comparison. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violated Article 2(9) and 2(10) of the Basic Regulation inasmuch as (i) the Commission erroneously deducted the sales, general and administrative expenses and the profit of Bien & Qua’s related trader from the export price, and alternatively (ii) the Commission, by not applying the same deductions on the normal value, failed to carry out a fair comparison.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/265 of 9 February 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tiles originating in India and Türkiye (OJ 2023 L 41, p. 1).

(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 2016 L 176, p. 21).

---