CELEX: 62020TN0301
Language: en
Date: 2020-05-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-301/20: Action brought on 19 May 2020 — Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission

27.7.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 247/30
            
         
      Action brought on 19 May 2020 — Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission
      (Case T-301/20)
      (2020/C 247/40)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicants: Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE (Ain Sukhna, Egypt), Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE (Ain Sukhna) (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicants claim that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 of 1 April 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China and Egypt, in as far as it relates to the applicants (1);
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s methodology for establishing Hengshi’s cost of production and the SG&A and profit for the calculation of Hengshi’s constructed normal value violates Article 2(5) as well as Articles 2(3), 2(6), 2(11), 2(12) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s methodology for the determination of the undercutting and underselling margins with regard to the applicants violates Articles 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(6) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation.
               
            
         (1)  OJ 2020, L 108, p. 1.