Tuesday, May 24 2022
download app
download appDOWNLOAD OUR APP
download google-play
download app-store
Dolores Utrilla
share
22nd April 2020
External Relations & Trade

General Court to rule on countervailing duty on imports of biodiesel originating in Indonesia

Official publication has been made of two actions for annulment (T-138/20 and T-140/20) brought before the General Court against Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/2092 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of biodiesel originating in Indonesia.

The applicants in both cases are companies based in Indonesia, namely PT Ciliandra Perkasa (in case T-138/20), and PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri and PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo (in case T-140/20). In their applications, which are almost identical, they rely, in essence, on the following pleas in law:

  • Firstly, they allege that the Commission violated Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of Regulation 2016/1037 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the EU in determining price undercutting as it failed to examine all the relevant evidence and failed to establish price undercutting for the product as a whole.
  • Secondly, they claim that the Commission violated Article 8(5) of Regulation 2016/1037 because it based its causation analysis on an erroneous finding of price undercutting.
  • Thirdly, they allege that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and breached Article 3 of Regulation 2016/1037 in finding, on the one hand, that payments by the Oil Palm Plantation Fund (‘OPPF’) are to be qualified as grants instead of payments for purchases of biodiesel and, on the other hand, that the OPPF payments confer a benefit to biodiesel producers, since the Commission (i) relied on a manifestly erroneous counterfactual and (ii) failed to find that the benefit, if any, was passed through to biodiesel blenders.
  • Fourthly, the applicants claim that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and breached Article 7 of Regulation 2016/1037 in calculating the amount of the benefit under the OPPF scheme.
  • Fifthly, they allege that the Commission violated Articles 8(1) and 8(8) of Regulation 2016/1037 by failing to base its threat of injury determination on positive evidence and an objective examination of all the relevant factors.
  • Sixthly, the applicants claim that the Commission breached their rights of defence by including certain essential considerations with respect to the undercutting analysis in the contested Regulation only, thereby depriving them from commenting on this issue.
  • Additionally, the applicant in T-140/20 alleges that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and breached Article 3 of the basic Regulation in finding that the government of Indonesia has entrusted or directed CPO suppliers to provide their goods for less than adequate remuneration, that it has provided income or price support to CPO suppliers and that a benefit has thereby been conferred.

Read the official publication of these actions here (for T-138/20) and here (for T-143/20).

×

Your privacy is important for us

We use cookies to improve the user experience. Please review privacy preferences.

Accept all Settings

Check our privacy policy and cookies policy.

Cookies