# C_2023304EN.01002701.xml

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/27

---

Action brought on 10 July 2023 — Marcegaglia Specialties v Commission

(Case T-378/23)

(2023/C 304/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Marcegaglia Specialties SpA (Gazoldo degli Ippoliti, 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) 2023/825 of 17 April 2023 extending the anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1408 on imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils originating in Indonesia to imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils consigned from Türkiye, whether declared as originating in Türkiye or not (OJ 2023, L 103, p. 12; the Contested Regulation), insofar as the applicant is concerned; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/825 of 17 April 2023 extending the anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1408 on imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils originating in Indonesia to imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils consigned from Türkiye, whether declared as originating in Türkiye or not (OJ 2023, L 103, p. 12; the Contested Regulation), insofar as the applicant is concerned; and

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

—

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 three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violated Article 13(1) and 13(2) of the Basic Regulation, insofar as the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by concluding that the manufacturing process carried out in Türkiye constitutes an ‘assembly/completion operation’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violated Article 13(1) and 13(2) of the Basic Regulation, insofar as the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by concluding that the manufacturing process carried out in Türkiye constitutes an ‘assembly/completion operation’.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violated Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation, insofar as the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by considering that there was no sufficient due cause or economic justification for the processing operation carried out in Türkiye. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation violated Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation, insofar as the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by considering that there was no sufficient due cause or economic justification for the processing operation carried out in Türkiye.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation is unlawful insofar as it extended the duty in force against imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils (SSHR) originating in Indonesia to imports of SSHR manufactured in Türkiye from stainless steel slabs of origin other than Indonesian. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation is unlawful insofar as it extended the duty in force against imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils (SSHR) originating in Indonesia to imports of SSHR manufactured in Türkiye from stainless steel slabs of origin other than Indonesian.

---