—

annul the contested regulation in so far as the applicant is concerned;

—

or, in the alterative, annul the contested regulation in its entirety; and

—

order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to provide adequate reasoning and committed a manifest error of assessment of the law and the facts in having recourse to the analogue country methodology.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of the law and the facts, infringed the principle of good administration and failed to provide adequate reasoning in concluding that the Union industry remained during the reference period vulnerable to the injurious effects of dumped exports of tartaric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China, as the Commission failed to consider the performance of the by far largest EU producer of tartaric acid, in breach of Articles 11(2) and 3(2) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (2) and Articles 11(3) and 3(1) of the WTO Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (‘the WTO Antidumping Agreement’).

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the law and of the facts by concluding that injury of the EU industry would likely recur if the EU antidumping measures against tartaric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China were terminated, since the applied methodology is, firstly, not based on positive evidence but rather unsubstantiated mechanistic assumptions and conjecture and, secondly, entirely fails to take into account the behaviour of Hangzhou Bioking, a major People’s Republic of China producer and the largest People’s Republic of China exporter of tartaric acid to the EU, that has not been subject to any EU antidumping duties since 20 April 2012. Moreover, the applicant submits that the impact of climatic changes on natural tartaric acid production is not taken into account, in breach of Articles 11(2) and 3(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 and Articles 11(3) and 3(1) of the WTO Antidumping Agreement.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed an essential procedural requirement relating to the rights of defence of the applicant in breach of Articles 3(2), 11(2), 16(1), 19(2), 19(4), 20(2), 20(4), 21(5) and 21(7) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 as well as Articles 3(1), 5(3), 6(1), 6(1)(2), 9(2), 6(4), 6(5)(1), 6(6), 6(9) and 11(3) of the WTO Antidumping Agreement and of the principle of good administration.