(Appeal– Dumping– Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/804– Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes originating in China– Definitive anti-dumping duty– Regulation (EU) 2016/1036

26The Commission claims that the Court should:

–set aside the judgment under appeal;

–reject as unfounded in law the first and second pleas in the application at first instance;

–refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration of the remaining pleas; and

–reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

27Hubei claims that the Court should:

–dismiss the appeal;

–in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration of the third and fourth pleas of the application at first instance; and

–order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings at first instance.

28ArcelorMittal and Others claim that the Court should:

–set aside the judgment under appeal;

–dismiss the first and second pleas raised at first instance as unfounded in law;

–refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration of the third and fourth pleas raised at first instance;

–order Hubei to pay the costs of the appeal; and

–reserve the costs as to the remainder.