47In the present case, it cannot be denied that the applicant was deeply involved in the preliminary investigation. In particular, it answered the Commission's questionnaire and submitted written observations. Furthermore, its representatives travelled abroad in order to defend the company at a hearing organized for that purpose by the Commission. Lastly, it corresponded with the Commission on a regular basis. All the information which it provided, together with its arguments, were received and evaluated by the Commission. That makes it clear that, from the point of view of both the applicant and the Commission, the applicant participated in the preliminary investigation and that its position was examined by the Commission in the course of the proceeding which led to the imposition of the antidumping duty. Contrary to the Council's contention at the hearing, that finding is not affected by the fact that the Commission ultimately decided not to accept the information provided by the applicant with regard to the central points at issue.