Case T-310/12: Action brought on 12 July 2012 — Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals v Council
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, India, anti-dumping duty, equal treatment, import (EU), infringement of EU law, organic acid








C_2012273EN.01002001.xml










8.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 273/20





Action brought on 12 July 2012 — Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals v Council
(Case T-310/12)
2012/C 273/34
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd (Yuan Ping City, Xin Zhou, China) (represented by: V. Akritidis, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 325/2012 of 12 April 2012, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of oxalic acid originating in India and the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2012 L 106, p. 1);










—


Order that all the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings be borne by the defendant.





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 the violation of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51) (‘the basic Regulation’), stipulating that injury refers to injury to the ‘Union industry’; and violation of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation on the definition of the Union industry, as the defendant has wrongly defined the Union industry by including two non-cooperating producers, of which one had ceased production several years before the investigation period.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 3(2) and Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, requiring the assessment of injury to the Union industry to be based on positive evidence following an objective assessment of all relevant factors, as the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in analysing the injury factors on the basis of two separate and conflicting sets of data (micro- and macro-economic factors) in a selective fashion.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, requiring that duties be imposed only insofar as they are necessary to offset the effects of injurious dumping; Article 14(1) of the basic Regulation, requiring that duties are collected independently of the customs duties, taxes and other charges; and Articles 20(1) and 20(2) of the basic Regulation, requiring the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which anti-dumping duties are imposed, as the defendant committed a series of manifest errors in calculating the injury margin and also failed to produce a statement of reasons.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation, a minimum 10 day period to submit comments on any definitive disclosure as well as of the general principles of non-discrimination, and the duty of good administration, as the defendant has granted the applicant a shorter time limit to respond to the investigation’s definitive disclosure than the time limit granted to all other parties in the proceedings.