CELEX: 62022TN0003
Language: en
Date: 2022-01-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-3/22: Action brought on 4 January 2022 — ZHPLK/Commission

21.2.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 84/47
            
         
      Action brought on 4 January 2022 — ZHPLK/Commission
      (Case T-3/22)
      (2022/C 84/67)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Zheshartsky LPK OOO (Zheshart, Russia) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and E. Gergondet, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  Declare the action admissible;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2021/1930 of 8 November 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of birch plywood originating in Russia (1) (the ‘Contested Regulation’), as far as it applies to the applicant; and
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to these proceedings.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Articles 2(10) and 2(10)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (2) (‘basic Regulation’), by adjusting the applicant’s export price for commissions paid to Trade House on domestic sales, instead of adjusting the normal value for the full amount of these commissions.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and acted in breach of Article 2(10)(e) or, in the alternative, Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation, by failing to take into account reimbursements of transport costs when adjusting the export price.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging in the alternative, that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation and failed to state reasons by not taking into account reimbursements of transport costs when determining the applicant’s selling, general and administrative expenses on the domestic market.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, failed to state reasons and violated the right to sound administration by including square-shaped Plywood in the scope of the product concerned or, in the alternative, committed manifest errors of assessment, failed to state reasons, violated the right to sound administration and acted in breach of Articles 3(2) and 3(6) of the basic Regulation by failing to assess separately square-shaped Plywood for injury and causality purposes.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation and violated the right to sound administration by determining import figures based on unreliable data.
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment, acted in breach of Articles 3(6) and 3(7) of the basic Regulation and violated the right to sound administration by failing to consider, in its causality assessment, the existence of different market segments, as well as the impact of other known factors causing injury.
               
            
         (1)  OJ 2021, L 394, p. 7.
      
         (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).