Action brought on 7 August 2013 – Jinan Meide Casting v Council

(Case T-424/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jinan Meide Casting Co. Ltd (Jinan, China) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand and terminating the proceeding with regard to Indonesia, insofar as it relates to the applicant (OJ 2013 L 129, p. 1); and

Order the defendant to bar the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the failure to provide access/disclose to the applicant information relevant to the normal value determination violates the rights of defense of the applicant and Articles 6(7), 20(2) and 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).

Second plea in law, alleging that the rejection of certain adjustments requested by the applicant violates Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and Article 2.4 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. In the alternative, the applicant considers that the Council violated Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Third plea in law, alleging that the normal value determination for non-matching product types violates Articles 2(7)(a), 2(10) and 2(10)(a) and Articles 2(11) juncto 2(8), 2(9), 2(7)(a) and 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and the principle of non-discrimination.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the failure to make a determination as to whether market economy conditions prevail for the applicant within three months of the initiation of the investigation violates Article 2(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the reliance on inaccurate import data for the injury determination violates Articles 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.