|
9.1.2023 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 7/19 |
Appeal brought on 8 November 2022 by Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 September 2022 in Case T-744/19, Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) v Commission
(Case C-688/22 P)
(2023/C 7/23)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) Ltd (represented by: B. Servais, and V. Crochet, avocats)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Achema AB, Grupa Azoty S.A., Grupa Azoty Zakłady Azotowe Puławy S.A.
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
set aside the judgment under appeal; |
|
— |
accept the application at first instance; and |
|
— |
order the Commission and any intervening party to pay the costs including those incurred at first instance; or alternatively |
|
— |
refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration; and |
|
— |
reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.
First, the General Court misinterpreted the rules of Articles 3(2), 3(3) and 9(4) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1) (the ‘Basic Regulation’) when defining the export price for the purpose of the undercutting and underselling margins calculation in case of exports to the European Union through related entities and, as a result, erroneously concluded that the Commission did not violate Articles 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(5) to 3(8) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation.
Second, the General Court misconstrued the arguments put forth by Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) Limited in the Reply regarding the Commission’s price depression and price suppression analysis and, as a result, mistakenly declared them inadmissible.