# C_2020443EN.01002901.xml

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/29

---

Action brought on 4 November 2020 — Zhejiang Beyondsun Green Energy Technology v Commission

(Case T-660/20)

(2020/C 443/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zhejiang Beyondsun Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd (Huzhou, China) (represented by: Y. Melin and B. Vigneron, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1216 of 24 August 2020 invalidating invoices issued by Zhejiang Trunsun Solar Co Ltd. in breach of the undertaking repealed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1570; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1216 of 24 August 2020 invalidating invoices issued by Zhejiang Trunsun Solar Co Ltd. in breach of the undertaking repealed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1570;

| — | order the Commission, and any interveners who may be allowed to support the Commission in the course of the proceedings, to bear the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission, and any interveners who may be allowed to support the Commission in the course of the proceedings, to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment of the facts of the case, and breached Article 8 of 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, and Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union, and in particular paragraphs 9 thereof, when it considered that the Applicant breached the terms of the undertaking agreed between the Commission and the CCCME on behalf of inter alia the Applicant. The Applicant did not breach its commitments made under the undertaking when it issued commercial invoices with a revised price in accordance with the variable duty MIP for imports that were released for free circulation after the entry into force of the Regulation repealing the undertaking and introducing the variable duty MIP i.e., after 1 October 2017. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment of the facts of the case, and breached Article 8 of 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, and Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union, and in particular paragraphs 9 thereof, when it considered that the Applicant breached the terms of the undertaking agreed between the Commission and the CCCME on behalf of inter alia the Applicant. The Applicant did not breach its commitments made under the undertaking when it issued commercial invoices with a revised price in accordance with the variable duty MIP for imports that were released for free circulation after the entry into force of the Regulation repealing the undertaking and introducing the variable duty MIP i.e., after 1 October 2017.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that even if the applicant breached the undertaking, quod non, the Commission acted illegally by declaring the relevant invoices invalid and collecting duties on them because the powers it relies upon to do so have either expired and/or been revoked. This is because implementing Regulations (EU) No 1238/2013 and No 1239/2013 expired on 7 December 2015 (under Article 5 of both regulations). Similarly, Implementing Regulations (EU) 2017/367 and No 2017/366 expired on 3 September 2018 (under Article 6 of both regulations). In any case, Articles 2 and 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/367 and Articles 2 and 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/366 had already been repealed by Articles 1(4), 1(5), 3(3) and 3(4) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1570. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that even if the applicant breached the undertaking, quod non, the Commission acted illegally by declaring the relevant invoices invalid and collecting duties on them because the powers it relies upon to do so have either expired and/or been revoked. This is because implementing Regulations (EU) No 1238/2013 and No 1239/2013 expired on 7 December 2015 (under Article 5 of both regulations). Similarly, Implementing Regulations (EU) 2017/367 and No 2017/366 expired on 3 September 2018 (under Article 6 of both regulations). In any case, Articles 2 and 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/367 and Articles 2 and 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/366 had already been repealed by Articles 1(4), 1(5), 3(3) and 3(4) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1570.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging, also in the alternative, that even if the applicant breached the undertaking and if the Court does not accept that the powers used by the Commission were repealed and revoked when the contested regulation was adopted, the Commission breached Articles 8(1), (9) and (10) and Article 10(5) of 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, and Articles 13(1), (9) and (10) and Article 16(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union, when it invalidated undertaking invoices and then directed customs to collect duties retroactively. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging, also in the alternative, that even if the applicant breached the undertaking and if the Court does not accept that the powers used by the Commission were repealed and revoked when the contested regulation was adopted, the Commission breached Articles 8(1), (9) and (10) and Article 10(5) of 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, and Articles 13(1), (9) and (10) and Article 16(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union, when it invalidated undertaking invoices and then directed customs to collect duties retroactively.

---