# C_2021053EN.01006402.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/64

---

Action brought on 22 December 2020 — Sinopec Chongqing SVW Chemical and Others v Commission

(Case T-762/20)

(2021/C 53/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sinopec Chongqing SVW Chemical Co. Ltd (Chongqing, China), Sinopec Great Wall Energy & Chemical (Ningxia) Co. Ltd (Lingwu City, China), Central-China Company, Sinopec Chemical Commercial Holding Co. Ltd (Wuhan, China) (represented by: J. Cornelis, F. Graafsma and E. Vermulst, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim 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 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

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 (1);

| — | 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 five 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(10) Basic Regulation, by the deduction of a notional commission from the export price charged by Sinopec Central China and a manifest error of assessment in finding that Sinopec Central China acts as an agent working on a commission basis, by not observing the fair comparison requirement and by making an upward adjustment to the normal value for non-recoverable VAT. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of article 2(10) Basic Regulation, by the deduction of a notional commission from the export price charged by Sinopec Central China and a manifest error of assessment in finding that Sinopec Central China acts as an agent working on a commission basis, by not observing the fair comparison requirement and by making an upward adjustment to the normal value for non-recoverable VAT.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 18(1) and 18(5) Basic Regulation as well as Article 6.8 of and Annex II to the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement by using a source for facts available that is punitive and is not the most fitting or appropriate information. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 18(1) and 18(5) Basic Regulation as well as Article 6.8 of and Annex II to the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement by using a source for facts available that is punitive and is not the most fitting or appropriate information.

| 4. | Fourth 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. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth 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.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicants’ rights of defence by refusing to disclose certain information necessary to be able to comment on the undercutting analysis. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicants’ rights of defence by refusing to disclose certain information necessary to be able to comment on the undercutting analysis.

---

(1)  OJ 2020, L 315, p. 1.

---