Appeal brought on 28 December 2006 by Moser Baer India Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 4 October 2006 in Case T-300/03: Moser Baer India Ltd v The Council of the European Communities

(Case C-535/06 P)

(2007/C 69/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Moser Baer India Ltd (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, Δικηγόρος, R. MacLean and J. Branton, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, Committee of European CD-R and DVD+/-R Manufacturers (CECMA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant relies upon three grounds of appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance.

The first ground of appeal relates to the infringement by the Court of First Instance of the principles of coherence and diligent investigation in determining the amount of the countervailable duty that was assessed against imports of CD-Rs into the European Community under the Contested Regulation. Under this ground of appeal, the Appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance did not abide by the above-mentioned principles when confirming that the Community Institutions acted legally when classifying all the Appellant's assets in the category of assets that benefited for countervailable subsidy. This resulted in a failure of the Court of First Instance to abide by the above-mentioned principles of Community law.

The second ground of appeal consists of two limbs namely that: (i) the Court of First Instance failed to appraise correctly the conflicting evidence on the record and in the Contested Regulation of a key element in the determination of injury, namely the price of Indian CD-R imports, over the course of the Injury Investigation Period; and (ii) that the Court of First Instance's endorsement of the findings in the Contested Regulation relating to stock levels of the Community CD-R industry constituted a factor supporting a finding of injury in the Contested Regulation.

The third ground of appeal relates to the Court of First Instance's failure to take proper account of the terms of Article 8(7) of the Community's Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation and its failure to take into account the impact of factors unrelated to imports of CD-Rs from India when examining the causal link between Indian imports and the alleged injury to the Community CD-R industry.

(1)  JO L 138, p. 1.