CELEX: 62013TN0108
Language: en
Date: 2013-02-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-108/13: Action brought on 23 February 2013 — VTZ and Others v Council

20.4.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 114/42
            
         Action brought on 23 February 2013 — VTZ and Others v Council
   (Case T-108/13)
   2013/C 114/64
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Volžskij trubnyi zavod OAO (VTZ OAO) (Volzhsky, Russia); Taganrogskij metallurgičeskij zavod OAO (Tagmet OAO) (Taganrog, Russia); Sinarskij trubnyj zavod OAO (SinTZ OAO) (Kamensk-Uralsky, Russia); and Severskij trubnyj zavod OAO (STZ OAO) (Polevskoy, Russia) (represented by: J. Bellis, F. Di Gianni and G. Coppo, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1269/2012 of 21 December 2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in, inter alia, Russia, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 insofar as it includes the sales referred to in paragraphs 23-33 of the Contested Regulation in the scope of the review investigation;
            
         
               —
            
            
               As a consequence of the partial annulment requested above, correct the rate of the anti-dumping duty applicable to TMK group from 28,7% to 13,6%; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.
   With the first plea in law, the applicants submit that the Council unlawfully relied upon criteria other than those set out in the wording of the relevant customs provisions to determine the classifications of the pipes referred to in paragraphs 23-33 of the contested regulation.
   With the second plea in law, the applicants submit that the specific grounds relied upon by the Council to conclude that the pipes referred to in paragraphs 23-33 of the contested regulation do not fall under CN code 7304 59 10 are flawed.
   With the third plea in law, the applicants submit that, in light of the specific circumstances of the case, the mere fact that the pipes referred to in paragraphs 23-33 of the contested regulation were actually used in the manufacture of tubes and pipes with other cross-sections and wall-thickness proves that they fall under CN code 7304 59 10.