CELEX: 62019TN0072
Language: en
Date: 2019-02-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-72/19: Action brought on 5 February 2019 — CRIA and CCCMC v Commission

15.4.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 139/66
            
         
      Action brought on 5 February 2019 — CRIA and CCCMC v Commission
      (Case T-72/19)
      (2019/C 139/69)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicants: China Rubber Industry Association (CRIA) (Beijing, China) and China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals & Chemicals Importers & Exporters (CCCMC) (Beijing) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicants claim that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1690 of 9 November 2018 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain pneumatic tyres, new or retreaded, of rubber, of a kind used for buses or lorries and with a load index exceeding 121 originating in the People’s Republic of China and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1579 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain pneumatic tyres, new or retreaded, of rubber, of a kind used for buses or lorries, with a load index exceeding 121 originating in the People’s Republic of China and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/163, in so far as it relates to the applicants and their relevant members; and
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that by making the injury analysis on the basis of the ʻweighted’ data of the sampled companies, the contested Regulation violates Articles 2(d), 8(1), (4) and (7) and 27 (juncto Article 10(6)) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council (ʻbasic anti-subsidy Regulation’). (1) Even if assuming the weighting would be allowed, the way in which it was done results in violations of Articles 8(1), (2) and (4) and 15(1) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of retreaded tyres does not allow the Commission to obtain any basis to logically progress its inquiry, in violation of Articles 2(d), 8(1), (4) and (5) and 9(1) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. The injury and causation analysis ignoring the segmentation between new and retreaded tyres is not based on positive evidence and does not amount to an objective examination in violation of Article 8(1), (4) and (5) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging that the assessment of the price effects (price undercutting and underselling) and determination the injury elimination level violates Articles 8(1) and (2) and 15(1) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, by failing to take into account the significantly higher cost per kilometre of a new tyre as compared to a retreaded tyre and by relying on constructed export prices.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the incoherencies, inconsistencies and absence of a positive and/or objective evidentiary basis of the causation analysis violates Article 8(1) and (5) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. The contested Regulation also fails to appropriately examine other known factors to ensure that the injury caused by those other factors is not attributed to the dumped imports contrary to Article 8(1) and (6) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the rights of defence of the applicants and Articles 11(7), 29(1), (2) and (3) and 30(2) and (4) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation by failing to disclose and provide the applicants with access to information relevant to the injury and dumping determinations.
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the level of the anti-dumping duties imposed by the contested Regulation violates the corresponding provisions of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (ʻbasic anti-dumping Regulation’) (2) and Articles 2(10)(b) and 2(7)(a) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation.
               
            
         (1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 55).
      
         (2)  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 L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21).