# C_2018142EN.01003701.xml

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/37

---

Appeal brought on 23 February 2018 by River Kwai International Food Industry Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2017 in Case T-460/14: Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD) v Council of the European Union

(Case C-144/18 P)

(2018/C 142/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: River Kwai International Food Industry Co. Ltd (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, advocaten)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD), Council of the European Union, European Commission

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 in Case T-460/14, Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD) v Council of the European Union; and |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 in Case T-460/14, Association européenne des transformateurs de maïs doux (AETMD) v Council of the European Union; and

| — | order the Applicant to pay the Appellant’s costs of this appeal as well as those of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-460/14. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Applicant to pay the Appellant’s costs of this appeal as well as those of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-460/14.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the General Court’s findings are vitiated by several errors of law and by a distortion of the facts and the evidence before it. The appellant therefore submits that the contested judgment should be set aside.

The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

First, the contested judgment’s failure to address the appellant’s objections to the admissibility of the original application — including with respect to the fourth plea — infringed the appellant’s rights of defense before the General Court. The contested judgment ignored the appellant’s inadmissibility claims without providing a reason/motivation as to why it was not necessary to address the appellant’s objections.

Second, by classifying the issue of the allocation of costs as one related to the determination of the normal value and hence the dumping margin calculation, and not as one related to the existence of a lasting change in circumstances, the contested judgment has distorted the evidence. None of the submissions made by the applicant during the administrative proceeding link the issue of the allocation of costs to the calculation of the dumping margin.

Finally, the contested judgment violates Article 10 of the basic Regulation (1) as well as the general principle of non-retroactivity as the appellant’s antidumping duty is effectively retroactively increased from 3,6 % to 12,8 %.

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51).

1

---