CELEX: 62019CN0666
Language: en
Date: 2019-09-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-666/19 P: Appeal brought on 9 September 2019 by Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2019 in Case T-741/16: Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission

11.11.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 383/47
            
         
      Appeal brought on 9 September 2019 by Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2019 in Case T-741/16: Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission
      (Case C-666/19 P)
      (2019/C 383/57)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and P. Billiet, avocats)
      
         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Hyet Sweet
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 28 June 2019 in Case T-741/16 in its entirety;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  grant the form of order sought by the appellant in its action before the General Court and annul the Contested Regulation (1), in so far as it relates to the appellant, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice; and
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant and the intervener before the General Court to pay the appellant's costs of this appeal and those of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-741/16.
               
            In the alternative, the appellant respectfully requests the Court of Justice to:
      
                  —
               
               
                  refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule on the second part of the first plea of the application;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  in the further alternative, refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule on any other of the appellant’s pleas, as justified by the state of procedure; and
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  reserve the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      The appellant advances five pleas of appeal.
      First plea: the General Court’s findings in paragraphs 54, 64-67, 69-70, 78-80, 87, 93 and 97-98 of the judgment under appeal are vitiated by manifest errors in the application of the law and distort the facts in determining that the appellant’s accounts were not prepared in accordance with International Accounting Standards (‘IAS’) and thus failed to satisfy Article 2(7)(c) 2nd indent of the Basic Regulation (2). As a further consequence, the General Court erred in law when it declined to examine the appellant’s claim under Article 2(7)(c) 3rd indent of the Basic Regulation.
      Second plea: the General Court’s findings in paragraphs 113, 115-118, 125-126 and 128 -130 of the judgment under appeal are vitiated by manifest errors in the application of the law and distort the facts in determining that the Commission did not infringe Articles 2(7)(a), 6(8) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation and its duty of care and good administration by failing to request and assess a detailed export transaction listing from the analogue country producer.
      Third plea: the General Court’s findings in paragraphs 141-144, 152-153 and 155-162 of the judgment under appeal are vitiated by manifest errors in the application of the law and distort the facts in determining that the Commission did not infringe Articles 2(10) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation, Article 2.4 ADA and its duty of care and good administration by refusing to adjust the normal value and the appellant’s export price for dumping margin calculation purposes.
      Fourth plea: the General Court’s findings in paragraphs 148 and 150 of the judgment under appeal are vitiated by manifest errors in the application of the law and distort the facts in determining that the Commission did not infringe Articles 3(2)(3) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation, the principle of good administration and its duty of care by not adjusting the Union producer’s noninjurious price level on account of differences in additional services, packaging and patent and know how royalties payable by the Union industry.
      Fifth plea: the General Court’s findings in paragraphs 189-191, 194, 200-201 and 203-206 of the judgment under appeal are vitiated by manifest errors in the application of the law and distort the facts in determining that the Commission did not infringe Articles 2(7)(a) and (10), 3(2)(3)(5), 6(8) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation, the principle of good administration and its duty of care by failing to ensure that the Union industry’s raw material costs from its related supplier were at arm’s length without requesting the completion of a related supplier’s questionnaire.
      
         (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1247 of 28 July 2016 Imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of aspartame originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2016, L 204, p. 92).
      
         (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).