# C_2022294EN.01004101.xml

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/41

---

Action brought on 16 June 2022 — LG Chem v Commission

(Case T-356/22)

(2022/C 294/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Chem, Ltd. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and T. Martin-Brieu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare the action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action admissible;

| — | Annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/547 of 5 April 2022 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of super absorbent polymers originating in the Republic of Korea (1) (‘Contested Regulation’), as far as it applies to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/547 of 5 April 2022 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of super absorbent polymers originating in the Republic of Korea (1) (‘Contested Regulation’), as far as it applies to the applicant;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, breached Article 3(3) 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 (2) (‘basic Regulation’), and violated the applicant’s rights of defence when analysing the price effect of imports from Korea. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, breached Article 3(3) 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 (2) (‘basic Regulation’), and violated the applicant’s rights of defence when analysing the price effect of imports from Korea.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Articles 3(2), 3(5), 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation and failed to state reasons by analysing the injury situation of Union producers in a biased manner and by attributing the alleged injury to Korean imports, rather than other known factors. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Articles 3(2), 3(5), 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation and failed to state reasons by analysing the injury situation of Union producers in a biased manner and by attributing the alleged injury to Korean imports, rather than other known factors.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Articles 3(3) and 9(4) of the basic Regulation and violated the applicant’s rights of defence by determining the injury margin based on a simplified product control number, by failing to provide adequate non-confidential summaries of the injury margin calculations and by failing to reflect other known factors of injury in its injury margin determination. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Articles 3(3) and 9(4) of the basic Regulation and violated the applicant’s rights of defence by determining the injury margin based on a simplified product control number, by failing to provide adequate non-confidential summaries of the injury margin calculations and by failing to reflect other known factors of injury in its injury margin determination.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant conducted the investigation in breach of the applicant’s rights of defence and in breach of the right to sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant conducted the investigation in breach of the applicant’s rights of defence and in breach of the right to sound administration.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 107, p. 27.

(2)  OJ 2016, L 176, p. 21.

---