Action brought on 2 August 2013 – Photo USA Electronic Graphic v Council

(Case T-394/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc. (Beijing, China) (represented by:K. Adamantopoulos, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 131, p. 1), insofar as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicant, and

Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission and the Council (hereafter, "institutions") made a manifest error of assessment by including plain polyester coated ceramic mugs in the scope of the product under investigation.

Second plea in law, alleging that, by grouping coated ceramic mugs with other types of stoneware tableware and kitchenware, the institutions failed to make a fair comparison in violation of Article 2(10) 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) (hereafter, "basic Regulation").

Third plea in law, alleging that the institutions infringed Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation by failing to properly analyze the effects on the situation of the Union industry of the anti-competitive practices investigated by the Bundeskartellamt (German Competition Authority). In this respect, the applicant submits that the institutions made a manifest error of assessment by concluding that anti-competitive practices did not have an effect on micro- and macro-economic indicators.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the institutions infringed Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation by failing to make an objective examination of the situation of the Union industry. In this respect, the applicant submits that the institutions made a manifest error of assessment by concluding that anti-competitive practices did not have an effect on micro- and macro-economic indicators