EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/31

Action brought on 20 June 2017 — Hansol Paper v Commission

(Case T-383/17)

(2017/C 269/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hansol Paper Co. Ltd (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, B. Servais and A. Tel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul 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;

— order the Commission to bear the costs of the 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 Articles 2(11) and 17(2) of the Basic Regulation (1) and unlawfully calculated the applicant’s dumping margin. — The applicant puts forward that the Commission resorted to sampling pursuant to Article 17 of the Basic Regulation despite denying having done so, thus violating Article 17(2) of the Basic Regulation as the applicant was not given the opportunity to submit its comments on the proposed sample. — The applicant further puts forward that the Commission wrongly and unlawfully calculated the applicant’s dumping margin thereby violating Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 9.3 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 9(4), second paragraph of the Basic Regulation as well as the basic principle of good administration. — According to the applicant, the Commission violated Article 9.3 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 9(4), second paragraph of the Basic Regulation as the anti-dumping duty imposed exceeds the amount of dumping found in the investigation. — The applicant further alleges that the Commission violated the principle of good administration in that it calculated the applicant’s ad valorem dumping margin wrongly and unlawfully by using a constructed CIF value rather than the actual CIF value.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly applied Articles 2(9) and 2(10) of the Basic Regulation by erroneously deducting undue allowances for sales of small roles made from Jumbo rolls sourced by Schades Ltd. from EU producers.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 2(1) of the Basic Regulation by erroneously constructing in two instances the normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Basic Regulation.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 1(1), 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 3(7) and 3(8) of the Basic Regulation, the case law of the EU Courts and of the WTO, the Commission’s past practice and the principles of fair comparison and of equal treatment in the injury margin calculation. — The applicant puts forward that the Commission violated Articles 1(1), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(6) of the Basic Regulation as it included resale of small rolls (product not concerned) in the injury margin calculation. — The applicant further alleges that the Commission violated Articles 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 3(7) and 3(8) of the Basic Regulation, the case law of the EU Courts and the WTO, the Commission’s past practice and the principles of fair comparison and of equal treatment as it applied by analogy Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation for the purposes of the injury margin calculation. — The applicant lastly claims that the Commission violated Articles 3(2), 3(3) and 3(6) of the Basic Regulation as it failed to properly assess the impact of the negative undercutting margin found for the product concerned.

(1) 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).