EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-199/23: Action brought on 14 April 2023 — Hansol Paper v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TN0199

62023TN0199

April 14, 2023
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

26.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/32

(Case T-199/23)

(2023/C 223/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the anti-dumping duty imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/593 of 16 March 2023 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain lightweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea as regards the Hansol Group and amending the residual duty (OJ 2023 L 79, p. 54), in so far as it concerns the applicant;

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(11) and of the second subparagraph of Article 9(4) of the basic regulation.

According to the applicant, the calculations made by the Commission to calculate, in the contested regulation, the revised anti-dumping duty of EUR 103,16 per tonne net do not correct the weighting error established by the General Court in paragraphs 85 and 86 of its judgment in Case T-383/17 and confirmed by the Court of Justice in paragraphs 62 to 64 of its judgment in Case C-260/20 P, and therefore infringe Article 2(11) and the second subparagraph of Article 9(4) of the basic regulation.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the basic regulation.

The applicant claims, in this connection, that the method used to calculate the normal value of Artone for a certain product type concerned infringes the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the basic regulation in that the Commission constructed the normal value of Artone for that product type, instead of basing the normal value on the prices of the applicant’s domestic sales in the ordinary course of trade for that product type within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the basic regulation.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia