EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/16

Appeal brought on 14 April 2014 by ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. and others against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2014 in Case T-528/09: Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union

(Case C-186/14 P)

2014/C 212/18

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s., ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Benteler Deutschland GmbH, formerly Benteler Stahl//Rohr GmbH, Ovako Tube & Ring AB, Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH, TMK-Artrom SA, Silcotub SA, Dalmine SpA, Tubos Reunidos, SA, Vallourec Oil and Gas France, formerly Vallourec Mannesmann Oil & Gas France, Vallourec Tubes France, formerly V & M France, Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, formerly V & M Deutschland GmbH, voestalpine Tubulars GmbH, Železiarne Podbrezová a.s. (represented by: Dr G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd, Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 in Case T-528/09;

— dismiss the first part of the third plea at first instance;

— refer the case back to the General Court as to the remainder of the action;

— order Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd to pay the Appellants’ costs of this Appeal and of the procedure in Case T-528/09 in the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants submit that the General Court committed three errors of law.

First, the General Court misinterpreted Article 3(7) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation (1) by holding that the institutions were not entitled to take into account that the situation of unusually high demand would likely come to an end and that in a situation of ‘normal’ demand, the true injurious effects of the dumped imports will be revealed and that the institutions had attributed the effects of a contraction in demand to the dumped imports.

Second, the General Court misapplied Article 3(9) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation and violated Article 6(1) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation in annulling the Contested Regulation (2) on the ground that the Commission’s predictions in the Provisional Regulation of the likely development of volumes and prices of dumped imports allegedly were not fully in line with the post-investigation period data.

Third, the General Court erroneously concluded that the institutions’ findings were vitiated by a manifest error of appraisal and the General Court failed to respect the boundaries of judicial review.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, OJ L 56, p. 1; replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (codified version), OJ (2009) L343, p. 51

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 of 24 September 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China, OJ L 262, p. 19