241That provision sets out a non-exhaustive list of the factors to be taken into consideration in determining whether there is a threat of material injury (see, by analogy, Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi in Joined Cases ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava and Others v Council and Council v Hubei Xinyegang Steel, C‑186/14 P and C‑193/14 P, EU:C:2015:767, point 44), namely factors such as:(a) the nature of the subsidy or subsidies in question and the trade effects likely to arise therefrom;(b) a significant rate of increase of subsidised imports into the Union market indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports;(c) whether there is sufficient freely disposable capacity on the part of the exporter or an imminent and substantial increase in such capacity indicating the likelihood of substantially increased subsidised exports to the Union, account being taken of the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional exports;(d) whether imports are entering at prices that would, to a significant degree, depress prices or prevent price increases which otherwise would have occurred, and would probably increase demand for further imports;(e) inventories of the product being investigated.’