25.9.2013 Official Journal of the European Union L 2531 (Non-legislative acts) REGULATIONS COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 917/2013 of 23 September 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 857/2010 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (') (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: A. PROCEDURE (1) By Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 857/2010 (?) (‘the contested Regulation’), the Council imposed definitive countervailing duties ranging from EUR 42,34 per tonne to EUR 139,70 per tonne on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates. (20 On 6 December 2010, the cooperating exporting producer in Pakistan, namely Novatex Ltd (Novatex' or () OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93. (?) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 857/2010 of 27 September 2010 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (O] L 254, 29.9.2010, p. 10). ‘the company concerned’), lodged an application at the General Court seeking the annulment of the contested Regulation in so far as it applied to the applicant (?). (3)  On 11 October 2012, the General Court in its judgment in Case T-556/10 (‘the General Court judgment’) found that the failure by the Commission and the Council to take account of the figure resulting from the revision of line 74 of the 2008 tax return of the company concerned, and the error resulting therefrom, affected the legality of Article 1 of the contested Regulation in so far as the definitive countervailing duty fixed by the Council exceeded the duty applicable in the absence of that error. Therefore, the General Court annulled Article 1 of the contested Regulation in so far as it concerned Novatex and in so far as the definitive countervailing duty exceeded that applicable in the absence of the error. (4) In Case T-2/95 (¥, the General Court held that, in cases where a proceeding consists of several administrative steps, the annulment of one of those steps does not annul the complete proceeding. This anti-subsidy proceeding is an example of such a multi-step proceeding. Consequently, the annulment of a part of the contested Regulation does not imply the annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of that Regulation. Moreover, according to Article 266 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Union institutions are obliged to comply with the General Court judgment. This also implies the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its partial annulment, while leaving unchanged the uncontested parts which are unaffected by the General Court judgment. It should be noted that all other findings made in the contested Regulation remain valid. (}) Case T-556/10 Novatex Ltd v Council of the European Union. (*) Case T-2/95 Industrie des poudres sphériques (IPS) v Council [1998] ECR 1I-3939.