Case T-462/15: Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Asia Leader International (Cambodia) v Commission
Date: 2015-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Viet Nam, amortisation, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), lease, originating product, price of energy, production cost, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2015320EN.01004901.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/49





Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Asia Leader International (Cambodia) v Commission
(Case T-462/15)
(2015/C 320/67)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Asia Leader International (Cambodia) Co. Ltd (Tai Seng SEZ, Cambodia) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible;










—


annul Articles 1(1) and 1(3) of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/776 of 18 May 2015 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines or not, to the extent that it concerns the applicant (OJ L 122/4);










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs and expenses incurred, as well as to bear its own costs; and










—


order any interveners in these proceedings to pay the applicant’s legal costs and expenses incurred for such intervention, as well as to bear their own legal costs.





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 an infringement of Article 13 (1) of Council Regulation (EC) 1225/2009 of 30th November 2009 (Codified Version) on Protection Against Dumped Imports from Countries not Members of the European Community caused by manifest error of assessment in law and fact on the Commission’s part in relation to the existence of circumvention and the nature of the facts available.






—


The applicant puts forward that the Commission has no evidence in its hands to support any finding that the frames in question originate in China.










—


The applicant alleges that on the contrary, all evidence submitted by the applicant supports that the bicycle frames in question originate in Vietnam.










—


Finally, according to the applicant, the Commission does not have the power neither on the basis of the Council Regulation (EC) 1225/2009 nor on the basis of the case law of the Court to simply conclude, by default, that the applicant was engaged in the transhipment of the product concerned from China.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 13(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 1225/2009 of 30th November 2009 (Codified Version) on Protection Against Dumped Imports from Countries not Members of the European Community caused by manifest error of assessment in law and fact on the Commission’s part in relation to the existence of assembly operations on the part of the applicant and breach of the duty of care.






—


The applicant puts forward that the Commission was required to use the actual information and data provided by the applicant as the basis for assessing its situation. According to the applicant, the use of the third-party benchmarks for this purpose is therefore not permitted where a reasonable and justifiable explanation is provided for actual data.










—


The applicant further puts forward that the Commission made a further infringement of the obligation to correctly appraise the production costs of the applicant when it reclassified the parts used to the make the applicant’s first sale to the European Union market as originating in China, though they originated in Vietnam. In doing so, the Commission allegedly also breached its duty of care.










—


Also, so the applicant claims, the Commission miscalculated the correct energy and rental costs by incorrectly using different factors in allocating these respective costs. The same miscalculation allegedly occurred when the Commission calculated that the company was operating at 13 % of its production capacity during the relevant period.










—


Finally, according to the applicant, the Commission declined to accept any depreciation costs for the fixed assets, though the applicant had furnished evidence that the company’s shareholder was reimbursed by the applicant.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging a failure by the Commission to properly give due weight to information and data submitted by the Applicant in response to final disclosure contrary to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) 1225/2009 of 30th November 2009 (Codified Version) on Protection Against Dumped Imports from Countries not Members of the European Community.






—


The applicant puts forward that the Commission’s complete discard of all the additional information provided by the applicant demonstrates that this information was not given the due weight it should have received.










—


According to the applicant, the additional information and evidence provided by the applicant to dispute the Commission’s finding of transhipment came from several different independent sources.










—


Finally, so the applicant claims, although it did not have any evidence or indication that the frames originated in China, the Commission should have concluded that the weight of evidence pointed in the direction of the Vietnamese origin of the frames.