Error! Reference source not found.
Action brought on 21 May 2008 - Transnational Company 'Kazchrome' and ENRC Marketing v Council
(Case T-192/08)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Transnational Company 'Kazchrome' (TNK Kazchrome) (Aktobe, Kazakhstan) and ENRC Marketing AG (Kloten, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and A. Willems, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
To declare the application admissible;
to annul Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia as far as it applies to the applicants;
order the Council to bear its own costs and those incurred by the applicants.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants, who produce and sell ferro-silicon to the market of the European Union, seek partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008
1 of 25 February 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia.
In support of their application, the applicants submit that they are directly and individually concerned by the contested regulation and that the anti-dumping duty imposed by the said regulation is the result of several manifest errors of assessment, manifest errors of fact and breaches of the Basic Regulation
2 ('the Basic Regulation') as well as of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. The applicants further argue that the defendant failed to state reasons as required by Article 253 EC.
On the basis of the first plea, the applicants submit that the Council failed to properly distinguish between effects caused by other known factors from any injury caused by the targeted imports and, thus, the Council's findings violate Articles 3(2), 3(6) and 3(7) of the Basic Regulation.
On the basis of their second plea, the applicants advance that the anti-dumping duty was adopted on the basis of an erroneous assessment of Community interest and in violation of Articles 9(4) and 21 of the Basic Regulation.
On the basis of their third plea, it is submitted that although the applicants provided verifiable information to the institutions, they were allegedly treated as non-cooperating, the Council failed to check the facts used against available information which was brought to their attention and failed to carry out a proper market economy treatment within the time-limits imposed by the Basic Regulation.
On the basis of the fourth plea, the applicants contend that their rights of defence have been violated in the course of the investigation.
____________1 - OJ 2008 L 55, p.62 - Council Regulation (EC) No384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p.1)