—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court;

—

Give a final judgment on the pleas of the appellant’s action for annulment where the stage of the procedure so permits, and partially annul the decisions contested at first instance;

—

In the alternative, refer the case for reconsideration to the General Court;

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

—

The General Court erred in its legal assessment of the Commission’s position on the relevance of a single economic entity (an integrated sales department of the exporting producer, located outside of the country of export) for the purposes of applying Article 2(9) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 ( 1 ) (‘the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation’) and erred in law by abstaining from ruling on the arguments of the Appellant based on the case law in Interpipe and Nikopolsky, thereby affecting the appellant’s right to judicial review,

—

The General Court erred in law, including in its assessment of the case law it examined, when it placed the burden of proof concerning the extent of the amount of adjustment under Article 2(9) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation on the interested party who claims that the adjustment is excessive on account of a demonstrated existence of a single economic entity;

—

The General Court erred in law by ruling that the existence of a single economic entity was not an issue in the contested decisions and before the General Court, and by basing its ruling on the premise that the Commission’s rejection of the existence of a single economic entity was not contained in the text of the contested decisions; the General Court failed to assess that such a rejection by the Commission was made in the parallel interim review investigation conducted pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation, relating to the same imports and covering the same investigation period.