Action brought on 20 February 2012 - Charron Inox and Almet v Council
(Case T-88/12)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicants: Charron Inox (Marseille, France) and Almet (Satolas-et-Bonce, France) (represented by: P.-O. Koubi-Flotte, lawyer)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
principally, annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1331/2011 of 14 December 2011 as being based on inadequate economic findings;
in the alternative, annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1331/2011 of 14 December 2011 which collects definitively the provisional anti-dumping duty already collected, in so far as that collection is inconsistent with the principle of legitimate expectations;
in the further alternative, acknowledge the European Union's non-contractual liability that validates the direct application of a collection which, in view of the subject-matter, ought to have been announced to the economic operators concerned within reasonable periods of time sufficient to enable them to anticipate their economic options with sufficient legal certainty;
in each case, order the repayment to and/or indemnification of the applicant companies in the following amounts:
damage caused to the company CHARRON INOX as a result of payment of the anti-dumping duties at issue: EUR 89 402.15;
damage suffered by the company ALMET - LE METAL CENTRE as a result of payment of the anti-dumping duties at issue: EUR 375 493;
damage suffered jointly by the companies CHARRON INOX and ALMET - LE METAL CENTRE as a result of payment of the anti-dumping duties at issue: EUR 58 594, that sum to be divided between them by CHARRON INOX and ALMET - LE METAL CENTRE themselves;
damage to the company CHARRON INOX as a result of its being required to obtain supplies from Indian suppliers on less favourable terms: EUR 57 883.18;
damage to the company ALMET - LE METAL CENTRE as a result of its being required to obtain supplies from Indian suppliers on less favourable terms: EUR 66 578.14.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments on which the applicants rely in support of their action against the regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People's Republic of China
2 are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-445/11
Charron Inox and Almet v
Commission, concerning the regulation imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on those imports.