# C_2020271EN.01003001.xml

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/30

---

Appeal brought on 11 June 2020 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 April 2020 in Case T-383/17, Hansol Paper v Commission

(Case C-260/20 P)

(2020/C 271/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, and A. Demeneix, agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hansol Paper Co. Ltd, European Thermal Paper Association (ETPA)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal, reject the application at first instance and order Hansol Paper Co. Ltd to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal, reject the application at first instance and order Hansol Paper Co. Ltd to pay the costs;

or, alternatively,

| — | refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration and reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration and reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the judgment under appeal the General Court annulled, to the extent that it concerns Hansol Paper Co. Ltd, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/763 of 2 May 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea (1).

The Commission relies, in support of its appeal, on three grounds of appeal.

The Commission considers the General Court:

| — | distorted the evidence and misinterpreted the legal framework applicable to the data on which the Commission is entitled to rely in order to construct the export price under Article 2(9) of the basic regulation (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

distorted the evidence and misinterpreted the legal framework applicable to the data on which the Commission is entitled to rely in order to construct the export price under Article 2(9) of the basic regulation (2);

| — | misinterpreted the rules of article 2(1) and (3) of the basic regulation for the determination of the normal value in case of absence of domestic sales; and |
| --- | --- |

—

misinterpreted the rules of article 2(1) and (3) of the basic regulation for the determination of the normal value in case of absence of domestic sales; and

| — | misinterpreted the rules of article 3 of the basic regulation when defining the undercutting margin in case of exports to the Union through related entities. |
| --- | --- |

—

misinterpreted the rules of article 3 of the basic regulation when defining the undercutting margin in case of exports to the Union through related entities.

---

(1)  OJ 2017, L 114, p. 3.

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

---