Case T-716/19: Action brought on 22 October 2019 – Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant v Commission
Date: 2019-10-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Russia, Ukraine, anti-dumping duty, export price, import (EU), iron and steel product, originating product, piping, rights of the defence, tube








C_2020010EN.01004301.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/43






Action brought on 22 October 2019 – Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant v Commission
(Case T-716/19)
(2020/C 10/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Interpipe Niko Tube OOO (Nikopol, Ukraine) and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant PAO (Dnipro, Ukraine) (represented by: B. Servais, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1295 of 1 August 2019 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1469 imposing a definitive antidumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036;










—


order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 2(3), first paragraph, Article 2(4), first paragraph, Article 2(6), first sentence, and Article 9(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (‘the Basic Regulation’) (1) and Article 2.2.2, first sentence, and Article 9.3 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement by including in the dumping margin calculation the selling, general and administrative (‘SG&A’) expenses for the sales made by the applicants to their related domestic trader.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by deducting from the applicants’ export price an amount corresponding to the SG&A expenses of the related trader and a notional profit of an unrelated importer as an adjustment pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) and Article 2(10), first paragraph, of the Basic Regulation.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation and unlawfully calculated the applicants’ dumping margin by applying a different methodology for the determination of the normal value and the export price of the applicants as compared to the methodology applied in the previous investigation which led to the imposition of the measure being reviewed.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicants submit that the Commission infringed the rights of defence of the applicants in that the second additional disclosure, received on the same date as the date of publication of the contested regulation, contains new factual elements upon which the applicants were not given the opportunity to comment.






(1)  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 2019 L 176, p. 21).