Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/28

—

(Case C-112/23 P)

(2023/C 127/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri, PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, European Biodiesel Board (EBB)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment under appeal;

—annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2092 of 28 November 2019 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of biodiesel originating in Indonesia (1); and

—order the European Commission to pay the appellants’ costs of this appeal as well as those of the proceedings before the General Court; or alternatively

—refer the case back to the General Court; and

—reserve the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on six pleas in law.

First, the judgment under appeal misinterpreted Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (2) (‘the basic regulation’) and distorted the evidence in finding the existence of significant price suppression.

Second, the judgment under appeal misinterpreted the findings of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Panel report entitled ‘European Union — Anti-dumping measures on biodiesel from Indonesia’, adopted on 25 January 2018 (WT/DS 480/R), or, alternatively, failed to take into account these findings.

Third, the judgment under appeal misinterpreted the findings of the WTO Panel report entitled ‘China — Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States’, adopted on 2 August 2013 (WT/DS 427/R), and other relevant WTO and EU case law.

Fourth, the judgment under appeal misinterpreted Article 8(1) of the basic regulation in finding that an undercutting calculation that disregards 45 % of Union industry sales complies with the legal requirement of an analysis based on an objective examination and positive evidence.

Fifth, the judgment under appeal distorted the evidence by concluding that the subsidies under the Oil Palm Plantation Fund scheme were not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.

Sixth, the judgment under appeal misconstrued the argument by the appellants and incorrectly interpreted Article 7(2) of the basic regulation.

(1) OJ 2019 L 317, p. 42.

(2) OJ 2016 L 176, p. 55.

—