# C_2023223EN.01003801.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 2 May 2023 — Hitit Seramik v Commission

(Case T-230/23)

(2023/C 223/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hitit Seramik Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Maslak, Türkiye) (represented by: A. Willems and B. Natens, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible;

| — | 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) and |
| --- | --- |

—

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) and

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

—

order the Commission 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 by using distorted costs of production to construct normal value for certain products, Regulation 2023/265 violates Articles 2(3), 2(5), first paragraph, and 2(10), first sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) and is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that by using distorted costs of production to construct normal value for certain products, Regulation 2023/265 violates Articles 2(3), 2(5), first paragraph, and 2(10), first sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) and is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that by failing to adjust normal value for inflation, Regulation 2023/265 violates Article 2(10)(k) and 2(10), first sentence, of Regulation 2016/1036 and is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that by failing to adjust normal value for inflation, Regulation 2023/265 violates Article 2(10)(k) and 2(10), first sentence, of Regulation 2016/1036 and is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that by calculating an excessive dumping margin and imposing an excessive anti-dumping duty, Regulation 2023/265 violates Articles 2(12) and 9(4), second paragraph, of Regulation 2016/1036. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that by calculating an excessive dumping margin and imposing an excessive anti-dumping duty, Regulation 2023/265 violates Articles 2(12) and 9(4), second paragraph, of Regulation 2016/1036.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that by reaching conclusions unsupported by the facts, Regulation 2023/265 violates Articles 3(2), 3(5) and 3(6), read together with Article 17(1), of Regulation 2016/1036 and is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that by reaching conclusions unsupported by the facts, Regulation 2023/265 violates Articles 3(2), 3(5) and 3(6), read together with Article 17(1), of Regulation 2016/1036 and is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

---

(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).

---