# C_2021053EN.01006501.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/65

---

Action brought on 23 December 2020 — Inner Mongolia Shuangxin Environment-Friendly Material v Commission

(Case T-763/20)

(2021/C 53/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Inner Mongolia Shuangxin Environment-Friendly Material Co. Ltd (Ordos city, China) (represented by: J. Cornelis, F. Graafsma and E. Vermulst, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1336 of 25 September 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain polyvinyl alcohols originating in the People’s Republic of China; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1336 of 25 September 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain polyvinyl alcohols originating in the People’s Republic of China;

| — | orders the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that Article 2(6a) 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 (‘Basic Regulation’) mandates an approach and creates an exception that is not provided for in the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (‘ADA’), and therefore cannot be applied. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that Article 2(6a) 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 (‘Basic Regulation’) mandates an approach and creates an exception that is not provided for in the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (‘ADA’), and therefore cannot be applied.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(6a)(a) Basic Regulation by the defendant’s manifest errors of assessment in misinterpreting the wording of Article 2(6a)(a) of the Basic Regulation in considering that Mexican financial statements were not readily available, in breaching its duty of care by failing to consider meaningful data that would discard Turkey as the appropriate representative country, and in not selecting Mexico as the most appropriate representative country. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(6a)(a) Basic Regulation by the defendant’s manifest errors of assessment in misinterpreting the wording of Article 2(6a)(a) of the Basic Regulation in considering that Mexican financial statements were not readily available, in breaching its duty of care by failing to consider meaningful data that would discard Turkey as the appropriate representative country, and in not selecting Mexico as the most appropriate representative country.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(6a)(a) Basic Regulation by not constructing the normal value exclusively on the basis of undistorted values of corresponding factors of production. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(6a)(a) Basic Regulation by not constructing the normal value exclusively on the basis of undistorted values of corresponding factors of production.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(10) Basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(10) Basic Regulation.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 18 Basic Regulation by resorting to facts available when this was not justified. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 18 Basic Regulation by resorting to facts available when this was not justified.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 3(2) and 3(3) Basic Regulation and manifest error of assessment when establishing price undercutting and a consequent violation of Article 3(6) basic Regulation by failing to conduct a segmented price undercutting analyses, by failing to make the necessary adjustments for quality differences and by failing to establish price undercutting for the product as a whole. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 3(2) and 3(3) Basic Regulation and manifest error of assessment when establishing price undercutting and a consequent violation of Article 3(6) basic Regulation by failing to conduct a segmented price undercutting analyses, by failing to make the necessary adjustments for quality differences and by failing to establish price undercutting for the product as a whole.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicant’s rights of defence by refusing to disclose certain information necessary to be able to comment on the undercutting analyses. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicant’s rights of defence by refusing to disclose certain information necessary to be able to comment on the undercutting analyses.

---