Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:92
Date: 2000-03-30
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Third Chamber, Extended Composition
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Dumping;External relations;Commercial policy
Concepts: Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Dumping margin — 
Determination of the export price — Recourse to a constructed export price — 
Conditions — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits 
(Council Regulation No 2423/88, Art. 2(8)(b)) 
2. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Price undertaking — 
Breach by operator — Withdrawal by the Commission 
(Council Regulation No 2423/88» 
II - 1841 
SUMMARY — CASE T-51/96 
3. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Dumping margin — 
Determination of the export price — Sampling — Permissibility — Conditions — 
Representative nature of the sample 
(Council Regulation No 2423/88) 
4. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Injury — Discretion of 
the institutions — Judicial review — Limits 
(Council Regulation No 2423/88) 
5. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Review procedure — 
Initiation of a fresh investigation — Conditions — Sufficient evidence of dumping or of 
consequent injury - Injury — Concept 
(Council Regulation No 2423/88, Arts 4(1) and (2) and 14) 
1. According to Article 2(8)(b) of the 
basic r e g u l a t i o n , R e g u l a t i o n 
No 2423/88, the export price should 
be constructed 'where there is no 
export price or where it appears that 
there is an association or a compensa­
tory arrangement between the exporter 
and the importer or a third party, or 
that for other reasons the price actually 
paid or payable for the product sold for 
export to the Community is unreliable'. 
As is apparent from that list of criteria, 
and in particular from the use of the 
words 'where it appears' and 'for other 
reasons', the institutions have a certain 
latitude in deciding whether to apply 
Article 2(8)(b) of the basic regulation, 
and recourse may be had to the con­
structed export price not only where 
the institutions obtain actual evidence 
of the existence of a compensatory 
arrangement but also where such an 
arrangement appears to exist or the 
export price reported appears to be 
unreliable. 
Moreover, consideration of the ques­
tion whether or not the export prices 
reported by the exporter are reliable 
necessarily entails complex economic 
assessments in respect of which the 
institutions enjoy a wide discretion, so 
that the Court's power of review is 
restricted. 
((see paras 40, 42) 
2. Where, in the context of an anti­
dumping procedure, the Commission 
has accepted a price undertaking given 
II - 1842 
MIWON V COUNCIL 
by an operator, a finding that that 
undertaking has been violated, even if 
it concerns only a relatively small 
percentage of the turnover of the 
operator in question, is sufficient to 
lead to its withdrawal by the Commis­
sion. 
(see para. 52) 
3. The determination of a value or the 
reaching of a finding based on sample 
data is normal practice and is not per se 
open to criticism, especially in the 
context of the anti-dumping rules, 
provided that the sample in question 
is sufficiently representative. 
(see para. 52) 
4. The question whether the Community 
industry has suffered injury and, if so, 
whether that injury is attributable to 
dumped imports and the question 
whether imports from other countries 
contributed to the injury suffered by 
the Community industry involve the 
assessment of complex economic mat­
ters in respect of which the Community 
institutions enjoy a wide discretion. 
Consequently, judicial review of such 
an assessment must be limited to ver­
ifying whether the 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 appraisal of those facts or a misuse 
of powers. 
(see para. 94) 
5. In the context of a review initiated 
under Article 14 of the basic regula­
tion, Regulation No 2423/88, no spe­
cific provisions are laid down with 
regard to the determination of injury; 
consequently, where a regulation modi­
fies existing anti-dumping duties upon 
the conclusion of such a procedure, the 
existence of injury within the meaning 
of Article 4(1) of the basic regulation 
must be established. 
In that context, the mere fact that the 
Community producer of the product in 
question has increased its sales and its 
market share does not mean that it has 
ceased to suffer injury. Similarly, a 
reduction in the market share of the 
dumped imports does not preclude a 
finding that significant injury has been 
caused by them, provided that that 
finding is based on various factors 
which Article 4(2) of the basic regula­
tion requires to be taken into consid­
eration. 
(see paras 97, 103, 105) 
II- 1843