7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/32

(Case T-32/22)

(2022/C 109/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vyatsky Plywood Mill OOO (Kirov, Russia) (represented by: M. Krestiyanova and N. Tuominen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—Annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 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) in its entirety insofar as it affects the applicant;

—Order the defendant to pay the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Articles 3 and 4 of the Basic Regulation (2), made a manifest error of assessment by failing to consider the submissions of the EU Plywood Associations in its determination of the product scope, the composition and definition of the Union industry and breached the principle of good administration. In fact, as an unbiased investigating authority, the Commission should have focused on evidence submitted by the EU Plywood Associations on its own initiative, verified it and given a proper factual and legal assessment in the context of the product scope, which is a fundamental element of an anti-dumping investigation affecting all findings. The Commission also effectively rejected/disregarded any evidence or argument from the applicant concerning the EU Plywood Associations’ submission.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 3 of the Basic Regulation by conducting a flawed price analysis in the context of injury and causal link. First, the Commission ignored post-IP price developments and failed to take due account of the apparent market segmentation. Second, the Commission omitted to assess the effect of access to the main raw material by the Union industry, the impact of imports from third countries and of any potential discrimination against Russia.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 21 of the Basic Regulation, as the imposition of anti-dumping measures on imports of birch plywood originating in Russia goes against overall Union interest. Union industry, unrelated importers and users will be exposed to a scarcity of high quality, environmentally friendly and affordably priced birch plywood.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging — alternatively, if the General Court considers that the Contested Regulation should be upheld — that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by imposing the measure in its current form, which is against Union interest. The scope of the proceedings would be better served if the measures took the form of a variable duty based on an ad valorem duty capped by a minimum import price.

(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).