Case T-604/20: Action brought on 30 September 2020 — Guangdong Haomei New Materials and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology v Commission
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, aluminium, anti-dumping measure, coronavirus disease, epidemic, import (EU), non-flat product, originating product, principle of legal certainty, surveillance concerning imports








C_2020390EN.01004302.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/43






Action brought on 30 September 2020 — Guangdong Haomei New Materials and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology v Commission
(Case T-604/20)
(2020/C 390/62)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: Guangdong Haomei New Materials Co. Ltd (Qingyuan, China) and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology Co. Ltd (Yuan Tan Town, China) (represented by: M. Maresca, C. Malinconico, D. Maresca, A. Cerutti, A. Malinconico, G. La Malfa Ribolla, D. Guardamagna and M. Guardamagna, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should annul the contested regulation and order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1215 of 21 August 2020, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 24 August 2020, making imports of aluminium extrusions originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration.
In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 14(5) of the Basic Regulation with regard to the subject matter of the imports, illogical and inconsistent reasoning, and misuse of powers in the present case






—


The applicants claim in this regard that the contested regulation is characterised by uncertainty and inconsistency regarding the identification of the imports. Further, when the regulation was published on 24 August 2020, the Commission did not clearly identify the subject matter of the imports subject to investigation. In so doing, the Commission immediately penalised the imports, given the obvious and wide-ranging psychological effect of the registration on the aluminium extrusions market, but did not establish that all the requirements for registration imposed by the Basic Regulation were met.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging lack of individual standing to submit an application for registration






—


The applicants claim in this regard that, under Article 14(5) of the Basic Regulation, the application for registration must be lodged by ‘the Union industry’. In that regard, the applicants specify that the European Aluminium Association represents merely part of the industry and, in addition, is the complainant. Further, the complaint provides an incomplete overview that is not objective and global. Moreover, unambiguous information on that association as a genuine representative of the Union industry was not provided in the procedural documents.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging insufficient evidence






—


The applicants claim in this regard that the contested regulation does not distinguish between the two necessary requirements of ‘evidence’ and ‘purpose’, but merely contains a single section entitled ‘Grounds’. Such an approach confuses the two requirements, which, however, must be clearly identifiable.










—


In addition, the evidence held by the Commission does not show, even as a presumption, the existence of dumping. In addition, the Commission came to the conclusion that there was dumping, not via its own assessment of the information at its disposal, but by merely ‘accepting’ the grounds provided by the complainant. That modus operandi is not, therefore, sufficient to meet the evidence requirement set out in Article 14(5) of Regulation 1036/2016.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to assess retroactivity as part of the ‘purpose’ requirement, and infringement of Article 14(5) of the Basic Regulation, legal certainty, and the principle of legitimate expectations






—


The applicants claim in this regard that the contested regulation does not indicate in any way the purpose of the registration, but refers to Article 10(4) of Regulation 1036/2016. The lack of any explicit purpose, based, moreover, on insufficient evidence, means that the contested regulation is unlawful, as it infringes that provision of the Basic Regulation and, above all, infringes the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.














5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to assess the impact of COVID-19 on commercial flows, the purpose of the anti-dumping procedure, and registration






—


By their fifth plea, the applicants claim that the contested regulation is flawed as regards purpose and evidence, since, despite the seriousness and significance of the pandemic for international trade, the Commission failed to carry out a study or even any kind of documented analysis of the effects of COVID-19 on commercial flows. Moreover, the only response given by the regulation in that regard is that it mentions an — incorrect — reference to an increase in exports.














6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the duties were not set out, or were set out incorrectly






—


The applicants claim in this regard that the contested regulation is unlawful as it infringes Article 14(5) of the Basic Regulation, given that the implementing regulation must set out the estimated amount of possible future liability. The Commission arbitrarily determined the maximum dumping margin for all extrusions, taking as its point of reference the incorrect assessment of solid profiles alone, disregarding the procedural documents and deciding, without giving reasons, to extend the estimated dumping margin for one of the four subdivisions to the other three subdivisions.