11With regard to the first part of the fourth plea put forward by Petrotub, complaining that the Council had failed to explain, in breach of inter alia Article 2.4.2 of the 1994 Anti-dumping Code, why the asymmetrical method used by the Council reflected the full degree of dumping better than the symmetrical methods, the Court of First Instance held, in particular, as follows:105 Although, according to settled case-law, the provisions of the basic regulation must be interpreted in the light of the 1994 Anti-dumping Code (Case C-69/89 Nakaįima v Council [1991] ECR I-2069, paragraphs 30 to 32), the rules governing anti-dumping measures are contained in that regulation alone. The obligation referred to in Article 2.4.2 of the 1994 Anti-dumping Code to explain why the symmetrical methods of comparison cannot show the real extent of the dumping does not therefore, as such, constitute a rule which is to be applied, and Article 2(11) of the basic regulation clearly does not mention any specific obligation to give such an explanation.106 However, in so far as this plea can be understood as meaning that the applicant alleges that the statement of reasons given for the contested regulation is inadequate, it should be borne in mind that the statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the EC Treaty (now Article 253 EC) must show clearly and unequivocally the reasoning of the Community authority which adopted the contested measure, so as to inform the persons concerned of the justification for the measure adopted and thus enable them to defend their rights and the Community judicature to exercise its powers of review. The extent of the obligation to state reasons must be assessed in the light of the context and the procedure in which the contested regulation was adopted and the body of legal rules governing the field concerned (see, most recently, Case T-48/96 Acme Industry v Council [1999] ECR II-3089, paragraph 141).107 In this case, the statement of reasons for the contested regulation must be appraised having regard, in particular, to the information disclosed to the applicant and to its observations concerning the method of comparison to be applied with a view to determining the dumping margin during the administrative procedure.108 In recital 28 of the provisional regulation the Commission stated:“The weighted average normal value for each product group was compared with the adjusted individual export prices in accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic regulation. This was necessary in order to reflect the full degree of dumping being practised and because there was a pattern of export prices which differed significantly between different customers and regions.”It maintained that view in the provisional disclosure of 2 June 1997.109 In its provisional submissions on dumping dated 1 July 1997 and at the hearing on 9 July 1997, the applicant challenged that view, contending that the Commission should have used the symmetrical method which consists in comparing the weighted average normal value with the weighted average of the prices of all Petrotub's exports to the Community. In its letter of 11 July 1997 it also claimed that a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average of the prices of all its exports to the Community in fact yielded a dumping margin significantly lower than that obtained by the method used by the Commission.110 The Commission stated in its final disclosure of 19 August 1997 that, as regards Petrotub, the pattern of export prices differed considerably as between the periods (from August 1995 to April 1996 and from May 1996 to August 1996 respectively). It indicated that, for all Romanian companies taken together, the difference in the dumping margin obtained by applying the methods of comparison of weighted average to weighted average or of weighted average to individual transactions was such that it could be concluded that the first of those methods did not enable the real extent of the dumping to be reflected.111 In its final observations on dumping of 8 September 1997, the applicant contended that the dumping margin should be determined by applying the weighted average to weighted average method of comparison.112 In recital 22 of the contested regulation, the Council stated:“One company claimed that the calculation of the dumping margin should not be made on the basis of a comparison of weighted average normal values with the adjusted export price of each corresponding group on a transaction-by-transaction basis, but on a weighted average to weighted average basis.This claim was rejected after the methodology used for all Romanian companies was reconsidered and it was found that:— for one company, there was no difference in dumping margin between both methods as all export transactions were made at dumped prices;— for three companies, a pattern of export prices which differed significantly by destination or time period was found.In view of the above, and in accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic regulation, the method comparing the weighted average normal value by time period to individual adjusted export prices on a transaction-by-transaction basis was retained for the purposes of the definitive determination.”113 The contested regulation thus sets out the reasons for which the Community institutions decided to apply the criterion of comparison of weighted average normal value with the prices of individual exports.114 In those circumstances, and in the absence of any specific challenge on the applicant's part in the course of the administrative procedure which might possibly have called for more detailed reasons (see Case T-164/94 Ferchimex v Commission [1995] ECR II-2681, paragraphs 90 and 118), the contested regulation cannot be regarded as vitiated by an inadequate statement of reasons regarding the application by the Community institutions of Article 2(11) of the basic regulation.115 As regards the applicant's complaint that the Community institutions confined themselves to considering the first symmetrical method (namely that of the weighted average to weighted average comparison) and failed to verify whether the second of the symmetrical methods referred to in Article 2(11) of the basic regulation (namely the method consisting in comparing individual normal values with individual export prices) might not reflect the real extent of the dumping engaged in, the Court finds that this is a separate plea in law which was not raised until the stage of the reply. This plea must therefore be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure.116 Finally, it is clear from the foregoing that, contrary to the applicant's assertions, the methods of comparison used to determine the existence of dumping were applied individually for each of the four Romanian exporting companies.117 It follows that the first part of the fourth plea cannot be upheld.’
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.