EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015CN0468
Case C-468/15 P: Appeal brought on 3 September 2015 by PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-26/12: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) v Council of the European Union
Case C-468/15 P: Appeal brought on 3 September 2015 by PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-26/12: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) v Council of the European Union
Case C-468/15 P: Appeal brought on 3 September 2015 by PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-26/12: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) v Council of the European Union
OJ C 354, 26.10.2015, p. 27–28
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
26.10.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 354/27 |
Appeal brought on 3 September 2015 by PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-26/12: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) v Council of the European Union
(Case C-468/15 P)
(2015/C 354/29)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) (represented by: D. Luff, avocat)
Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH, Sasol Germany GmbH
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
declare this appeal admissible and well founded; |
|
— |
set aside the Judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 June 2015 in case PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) v Council of the European Union, T-26/12; |
|
— |
give final judgment, upholding PT Musim Mas’ claims before the General Court and, accordingly, annul the antidumping duty imposed on the Appellant under Council Implementing Regulation (EC) No 1138/2011 (1) of 8 November 2011 imposing the definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1241/2012 (2) of 11 December 2012 amending Implementing Regulation No 1138/2011, |
|
— |
order the Council and the interveners, in addition to paying their own costs, to bear all costs occasioned to the Appellants in the course of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the four grounds of appeal summarized below.
Firstly, the General Court infringed Article 2(10)(i) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 (the ‘Basic Regulation’) by wrongly applying the single economic entity (‘SEE’) concept and concluding that the Appellant and ICOFS do not form a SEE.
Secondly, the General Court infringed Article 2(10)(i) of the Basic Regulation by erroneously ruling that the Council sufficiently demonstrated that the functions carried out by ICOFS were similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis. The General Court carried out an insufficient and discriminatory reasoning on the basis of the evidence available.
Thirdly, the General Court infringed the first subparagraph of Article 2(10) of the Basic Regulation by erroneously ruling that the Council did not unduly affect the symmetry between the normal value and the export price.
Fourthly, the General Court misapplied the principle of good administration by erroneously accepting that the Council used only the Council’s evidence while ignoring relevant evidence and information presented before it by the Appellant throughout the anti-dumping investigation.