Action brought on 19 August 2013 – Giant (China) v Council

(Case T-425/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giant (China) Co. Ltd (Kunshan, China) (represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 of 29 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2013 L 153, p. 17), in so far as it relates to the applicant; and

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the that the Council applied the wrong legal test to determine that Jinshan and Giant China formed a single economic entity thereby violating Article 9(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (the basic regulation).

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment when concluding that Giant China and the Jinshan group of companies have a close commercial and structural relationship.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council violated Article 18 of the basic regulation by requesting the production of information that was not necessary and could not reasonably be expected to be provided by Giant China.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment in considering that Giant China did not claim that obtaining the information relating to Jinshan was unreasonably burdensome.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment in considering that the evidence submitted by applicant could not be verified.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission and the Council violated the rights of defense of Giant China by requesting information it was unable to provide and by dismissing the alternative evidence adduced.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment in considering that the imposition of an individual duty on Giant China would have created a risk of circumvention.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Council applied different criteria in assessing whether there was a risk of circumvention in the case of the applicant than the criteria applied for other producers and thereby violated the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality.