50The objective difference between the two proceedings lies in the fact that imports subject to a review proceeding are those on which definitive antidumping duties have already been imposed and in respect of which sufficient evidence has generally been adduced to establish that the expiry of those measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. On the other hand, where imports are subject to an initial investigation, the purpose of that investigation is precisely to determine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping even if the initiation of such an investigation presupposes the existence of sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of that procedure/proceeding. It must therefore be held that, quite apart from the formal aspect noted by the Court of First Instance in paragraph 57 of the judgment under appeal, the difference in treatment recorded in this case was justified in substantive terms because, in the light of the relevant provisions of the basic regulation, the imports which gave rise to the imposition of a definitive antidumping duty by the Council, because of their source, were not in the same situation as similar imports from other sources which were merely subject to an initial investigation.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.