11The General Court found, in particular, in paragraphs 40 to 53 of the judgment under appeal:40 It should be borne in mind, as a preliminary point, that, in the sphere of measures to protect trade, the institutions enjoy a broad discretion by reason of the complexity of the economic, political and legal situations which they have to examine (Case C-351/04 Ikea Wholesale [2007] ECR I-7723, paragraph 40, and Case T-221/05 Huvis v Council, judgment of 8 July 2008, not published in the ECR, paragraph 38).41 It is, moreover, settled case-law that, in the sphere of measures to protect trade, review by the Community judicature of assessments made by the institutions must be limited to establishing whether the relevant procedural rules have been complied with, whether the facts on which the contested choice is based have been accurately stated and whether there has been a manifest error of assessment of those facts or a misuse of power (see Case T-35/01 Shanghai Teraoka Electronic v Council [2004] ECR II-3663, paragraphs 48 and 49 and case-law cited, and Case T-300/03 Moser Baer India v Council [2006] ECR II-3911, paragraph 28 and case-law cited). That limited judicial review covers, in particular, the choice between the different methods of calculating the dumping margin and the assessment of the normal value of a product (see Ikea Wholesale, cited in paragraph 40 above, paragraph 41 and case-law cited).42 The case-law has further established that it is apparent from both the wording and the scheme of Article 2(10) of the basic regulation that an adjustment to the export price or the normal value may be made only in order to take account of differences in factors which affect the prices and therefore their comparability (Case T-88/98 Kundan and Tata v Council [2002] ECR II-4897, paragraph 94). That means, in other words, that the purpose of an adjustment is to re-establish the symmetry between normal value and export price, with the result that, if the adjustment has been validly made, that implies that it has re-established the symmetry between normal value and export price. By contrast, if the adjustment has not been validly made, that implies that it has created an asymmetry between the normal value and the export price (Case T-249/06 Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe NTRP v Council [2009] ECR [II-383], paragraphs 194 and 195).43 It is in this context that the Court must examine the issue whether the level of comparison chosen by the institutions was respected in the calculation of the normal value and the export price and ascertain, subsequently, whether the adjustment made led to a re-establishment of the symmetry in the comparison of those two factors or whether, on the contrary, it resulted in a comparison at different levels of trade.44 In the present case, it is apparent from recital 22 in the preamble to the definitive regulation that the comparison between the normal value and the export price of the LAMs originating in China was carried out by the institutions at the same level of trade, namely at the ex-factory stage. In particular, as regards the LAMs manufactured by the applicant, it is stated in the letter of 3 July 2006 that both the normal value and the export price of those products were determined before any involvement by any intermediate trader in the sales process, that is, before the involvement of LECO and WWS in the marketing of LAMs manufactured by the applicant.45 Next, as regards, first, the export price, the Court notes that the applicant does not dispute that the calculation of that price was made in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic regulation. The applicant acknowledges, with the institutions, that the export price of its LAMs corresponds to the prices applied by WWS to independent customers on the Community market, as provided for in recital 21 in the preamble to the definitive regulation and, by reference to that recital, in recitals 41 and 42 in the preamble to the provisional regulation.46 As regards, secondly, the normal value, the applicant, by contrast, takes the view that that value ought to have been determined in accordance with Article 2(1) and (3) of the basic regulation and thus correspond to the price of its LAMs as applied by WWS on the Chinese domestic market.47 It should be borne in mind in that regard that it is apparent from the wording of Article 2(7)(b) of the basic regulation that the determination of the normal value of products originating in China by reference to the rules laid down in Article 2(1) to (6) thereof is confined to specific individual cases in which each of the producers concerned has made a properly substantiated claim in accordance with the criteria and procedures laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic regulation to show that market-economy conditions prevail for them (see, to that effect, Case T-255/01 Changzhou Hailong Electronics & Light Fixtures and Zhejiang Yankon v Council [2003] ECR II-4741, paragraph 40).48 It is clear in the present case, by contrast, that, according to recital 14 in the preamble to the definitive regulation, the claim submitted by the applicant pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic regulation was rejected. Accordingly, the normal value of the applicant’s LAMs could not be established as corresponding to the prices of those products on the applicant’s domestic market, namely, the prices applied by WWS on the Chinese market, in so far as it had been determined that they were not the subject of normal market transactions.49 The Court further notes that the applicant’s reference in this regard to paragraphs 15 to 18 of the judgment in [Case 250/85] Brother Industries v Council [[1988] ECR 5683] is not relevant to the present case. In that judgment, although the Court of Justice found that the institutions had correctly calculated the normal value of the imports originating in Japan on the basis of the resale prices applied by the distributor on the domestic market, that assessment was based on the fact that Japan is a market-economy country.50 Next, the Court notes that, according to recital 17 in the preamble to the definitive regulation, the normal value of the LAMs produced by the applicant was calculated on a reasonable basis in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic regulation. According to the case-law, the aim of that provision is precisely to prevent account from being taken of prices and costs in non-market-economy countries, as they are not the normal result of market forces (see, by way of analogy, Joined Cases C-305/86 and C-160/87 Neotype Techmashexport v Commission and Council [1990] ECR I-2945, paragraph 26, and Case C-16/90 Nölle [1991] ECR I-5163, paragraph 10). As regards, in particular, the applicant’s LAMs, it is apparent from the letter of 3 July 2006 that the normal value was calculated on the basis of the costs of manufacture, administrative expenses and other general costs of similar Community producers and a reasonable profit estimate. No direct sales expenses could be included in that calculation, however, because, as the applicant acknowledges a number of times, including in the answers to the questionnaire sent to the Commission during the investigation and in the letter of 5 June 2006, LECO and WWS were in charge of marketing the applicant’s products.51 It thus follows from the manner in which the calculation of the normal value of the applicant’s LAMs was carried out, including the non-inclusion in that calculation of the sales expenses, that an imbalance would have occurred in the comparison of the normal value and the export price of the applicant’s LAMs if an adjustment had not been made by the institutions in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic regulation, consisting in a deduction from the export price of the sales costs arising from the marketing of the applicant’s LAMs on the Community market.52 Consequently, the Court finds that the institutions did not make a manifest error of assessment in making an adjustment to the export price of the LAMs manufactured by the applicant in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic regulation.53 In the light of the foregoing, the first part of the first plea put forward by the applicant must be rejected.’
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.