CELEX: 62011TN0444
Language: en
Date: 2011-08-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-444/11: Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) and Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) v Council

8.10.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 298/24
            
         Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) and Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) v Council
   (Case T-444/11)
   2011/C 298/44
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd (Jiangsu, China) and Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co. Ltd (Jiangsu) (represented by: V. Akritidis, Y. Melin and F. Crespo, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 452/2011 of 6 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-subsidy duty on imports of coated fine paper originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 128, p. 18), as far as the applicants are concerned; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to bear the costs of these proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on ten pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the amount of countervailing duty imposed exceeds the amount of countervailable subsidies found in breach of Article 15(1) of the basic anti-subsidy regulation (1), in that first the ad valorem duty imposed was not expressed as a percentage of the CIF price, but rather as a percentage of the turnover.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the benefit conferred by the government provision of land-use rights for less than adequate remuneration was not properly calculated, in breach of Articles 4, 6(d) and 28 of the basic anti-subsidy regulation.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 4 of the basic anti-subsidy regulation, as the dividend exemption between qualified residents enterprises scheme is not specific and, as a result, the duty imposed to countervail this scheme breaches the said legal provision.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 7(3) of the basic anti-subsidy regulation, as the allocation of the subsidy amount for the VAT and tariff exemption on imported equipment and VAT rebates on domestically produced equipment was allocated over a period shorter than the normal depreciation period in the industry concerned.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 6(b) of the basic anti-subsidy regulation, since for the preferential lending to the coated paper industry the European institutions concerned have not investigated what rate the applicants would have obtained in the market.
            
         
               6.
            
            
               Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 14(2) of the basic anti-subsidy regulation, as the imposition of the countervailing duties is not necessary in view of the concomitant imposition of anti-dumping duties.
            
         
               7.
            
            
               Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of Article 8(1) of the basic anti-subsidy regulation and lack of reasoning, in that the European institutions concerned conducted their investigation in such a way that it became more likely that, as a result of the fact-finding or evaluation process, they would determine that the EU industry is injured.
            
         
               8.
            
            
               Eighth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 2(d) and 15 of the basic anti-subsidy regulation, in that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 4522011 set target profit margin that the EU industry never achieved in the past.
            
         
               9.
            
            
               Ninth plea in law, alleging that the decision to exclude web-fed rolls from the product concerned and the like product was based on manifest errors in the assessment of the facts of the case, and resulted in a breach of Article 8 (injury), Article 9(1) (Union industry) and Article 10(6) (standing) of the basic anti-subsidy regulation.
            
         
               10.
            
            
               Tenth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 8(1) and Article 8(6) of the basic anti-subsidy regulation, in that there is no assessment in the contested regulation of whether the duty imposed does not go beyond what is necessary to offset the injury caused by the subsidised imports.
            
         
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 188, p. 93)