# C_2023179EN.01007102.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/71

---

Action brought on 31 March 2023 — PT Musim Mas v Commission

(Case T-176/23)

(2023/C 179/99)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PT Musim Mas (Medan, Indonesia) (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/111 of 18 January 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of fatty acid originating in Indonesia in its entirety insofar as it concerns the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/111 of 18 January 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of fatty acid originating in Indonesia in its entirety insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

| — | Order the Commission and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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 the Commission violated the principles to state reasons and of good administration by deciding not to terminate the investigation in light of the withdrawal of the complaint. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the principles to state reasons and of good administration by deciding not to terminate the investigation in light of the withdrawal of the complaint.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 21(1) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation by failing to conclude that it was not in the Union interest to impose measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 21(1) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation by failing to conclude that it was not in the Union interest to impose measures.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 2(3), 2(6) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation by using an unreasonable and wrongly computed profit margin to construct the normal value of product control numbers (PCNs) sold by the applicant in non-representative quantities on the domestic market. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 2(3), 2(6) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation by using an unreasonable and wrongly computed profit margin to construct the normal value of product control numbers (PCNs) sold by the applicant in non-representative quantities on the domestic market.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by constructing the normal value of five PCNs that were not sold at all by the applicant on the domestic market pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Basic Regulation without having first established whether it was possible to determine the normal value of these five PCNs on the basis of the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the Basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by constructing the normal value of five PCNs that were not sold at all by the applicant on the domestic market pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Basic Regulation without having first established whether it was possible to determine the normal value of these five PCNs on the basis of the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the Basic Regulation.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation by imposing an anti-dumping duty which exceeds the dumping margin, as it used an incorrect exchange rate to convert the net invoice value and cost, insurance and freight values of certain transactions of ICOF Europe. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation by imposing an anti-dumping duty which exceeds the dumping margin, as it used an incorrect exchange rate to convert the net invoice value and cost, insurance and freight values of certain transactions of ICOF Europe.

---