Appeal brought on 14 February 2020 by Yieh United Steel Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 December 2019 in Case T-607/15, Yieh United Steel v Commission

(Case C-79/20 P)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Yieh United Steel Corp. (represented by: D. Luff, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Eurofer, Association Européenne de l'Acier, AISBL

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

declare this appeal admissible and well founded;

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 3 December 2019 in case Yieh United Steel Corporation Ltd (Yusco) v Commission of the European Union, T-607/15;

in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, give final judgment, upholding Yusco’s claims before the General Court and, accordingly, annul the antidumping duty imposed on the appellant under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429¹ of 26 August 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People's Republic of China and Taiwan (the “Contested Regulation” or the “Definitive Duty Regulation”), in so far as it relates to the applicant;

order the Commission and the interveners, in addition to paying their own costs, to bear all costs occasioned to the appellants in the course of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the three grounds of appeal summarized below.

Firstly, the General Court infringed Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2016/1036² of 8 June 2016 (the “Basic Regulation”) by wrongly discarding the application of this provision.

Secondly, the General Court infringed Article 2(5) of the Basic Regulation by not adequately balancing the interests of the Commission in the context of its investigation and the appellant’s right to have its own records considered.

Thirdly, the General Court infringed Article 2(2) of the Basic Regulation by erroneously ruling that the rejection of a domestic sale under Article 2(2) of the Basic Regulation does not require seeking a specific intention or knowledge on the part of the vendor as to the final export of the products concerned.

____________

¹ OJ 2015, L 224, p. 10.

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).