Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2018:783
Date: 2018-11-15
Language of the case: English
Subject matter: Dumping;External relations;Commercial policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Action brought on 4 March 2015 – RFA International v Commission (Case T-113/15) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: RFA International, LP (Calgary, Canada) (represented by: B. Evtimov and M. Krestiyanova, lawyers) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul, in whole or in part, Commission Implementing Decisions C(2014) 9805 final, C(2014) 9806 final, C(2014) 9807 final, C(2014) 9808 final, C(2014) 9811 final, C(2014) 9812 final and C(2014) 9816 final, of 18 December 2014, concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia; order the Commission to pay the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made an error in law, resulting from a breach and/or an erroneous interpretation of Article 2(9) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation1 and/or a manifest error of assessment in finding that a single economic entity is irrelevant, including for the purposes of judicial review, for the purposes of Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation. The Applicant also challenges the consequential finding that a full deduction for all reported sales costs and profit, including export-related costs and a reasonable profit of an unrelated importer, from the constructed export price was warranted; Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 11(10) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation2 and a manifest error of assessment in the Commission’s deduction of the anti-dumping duties from the constructed export price. According to the Applicant, even by following the Commission’s methodology, the Commission should have found that the conditions of Article 11(10) were met at least as regards a part of the amounts applied for. The second plea also argues for a breach of Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation, resulting from the Commission’s methodology for assessing whether the duties are duly reflected in the resale price, which was different from the methodology used in the last investigation which led to the duty; Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 11(9) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation3 and Article 18.3.1 of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement, which occurred when the Commission, for the purpose of determining constructed normal values, applied a new methodology and could not justify that methodology by any relevant change in circumstances. ____________ ____________ 1 Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, OJ L 343 of 22.12.2009 2 Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, OJ L 343 of 22.12.2009 3 Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, OJ L 343 of 22.12.2009