Judgment;Information — ECLI:EU:T:2025:579
Date: 2025-06-11
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Dumping;External relations;Commercial policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber) 11 June 2025 (*) ( Commercial policy – Dumping – Imports of ceramic tiles originating in India and Türkiye – Definitive anti-dumping duties – Constructed normal value – Product control number – Article 2(3), (5) and (6) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 – Comparison between the normal value and the export price – Article 2(10) of Regulation 2016/1036 – Currency conversion – Injury to the Union industry – Article 3(2) and (5) of Regulation 2016/1036 – Sampling – Article 17(1) of Regulation 2016/1036 – Manifest error of assessment – Error of law ) In Case T‑230/23, Hitit Seramik Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ, established in Istanbul (Türkiye), represented by A. Willems and B. Natens, lawyers, applicant, v European Commission, represented by G. Luengo, R. Pethke and J. Zieliński, acting as Agents, defendant, THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber), composed of P. Škvařilová-Pelzl (Rapporteur), acting as President, I. Nõmm and D. Kukovec, Judges, Registrar: M. Zwozdziak-Carbonne, Administrator, having regard to the written part of the procedure, further to the hearing on 2 October 2024, gives the following Judgment 1 By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Hitit Seramik Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ, seeks the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/265 of 9 February 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tiles originating in India and Türkiye (OJ 2023 L 41, p. 1; ‘the contested regulation’), in so far as it concerns the applicant. Background to the dispute 2 The applicant is a Turkish exporting producer of ceramic tiles. 3 Following a complaint lodged on 3 November 2021 by the European Ceramic Tile Manufacturers’ Association, the European Commission, on the basis of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21), in the version applicable to the facts of the case (‘the basic regulation’), initiated an anti-dumping procedure concerning imports of ceramic tiles originating in India and Türkiye. 4 The investigation covered the period from 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021 (‘the investigation period’). 5 The products under investigation were ceramic flags and paving, hearth or wall tiles; ceramic mosaic cubes and the like, whether or not on a backing; and finishing ceramics. Those products, whether they originate in Türkiye and are sold on the Turkish domestic market or whether they are produced and sold in the European Union by the Union industry, are like products (‘the products at issue’). 6 The applicant was included in the sample of Turkish exporting producers selected by the Commission on the basis of Article 17 of the basic regulation. 7 On 9 February 2023, the Commission adopted the contested regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty on imports of the product at issue ranging from 4.8% to 20.9%. Forms of order sought 8 The applicant claims that the Court should: – annul the contested regulation in so far as it concerns it; – order the Commission to pay the costs. 9 The Commission contends that the Court should: – dismiss the action; – order the applicant to pay the costs. Law 10 In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law relating, first, to the grouping of ordinary tiles with finishing tiles in order to determine the constructed normal value; second, to the Commission’s failure to take into account inflation on the Turkish domestic market during the investigation period; third, to the consequences to be drawn from the unlawful acts relied on in the first and second pleas in law; and, fourth, to the injury to the Union industry and, more particularly, to the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry. 11 It is appropriate to examine each of those four pleas in turn. As a preliminary point, however, it is appropriate to examine the applicant’s application for the omission of data other than personal data of natural persons vis-à-vis the public. The application for the omission of data 12 By separate document lodged with the Registry of the General Court on 2 May 2023, the applicant lodged an application for the omission of data other than personal data of natural persons, vis-à-vis the public pursuant to Article 66a of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, in order to safeguard the confidentiality of business information. 13 The applicant’s application concerns a wide array of data contained, inter alia, in the application. 14 In reconciling the need to make judicial decisions public and the right to protection of personal data and of business secrets, the court must seek, in the circumstances of each case, to find a fair balance, having regard to the public’s right of access to judicial decisions (judgment of 27 April 2022, Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz – Port Polski Ośrodek Rozwoju Technologii v Commission, T‑4/20, EU:T:2022:242, paragraph 29). 15 Moreover, the publicity of judicial decisions is aimed at ensuring scrutiny of the judiciary by the public and constitutes a basic procedural safeguard against arbitrariness (ECtHR, 16 April 2013, Fazliyski v. Bulgaria, CE:ECH:2013:0416JUD004090805, § 69). 16 Therefore, the applicant’s application should be granted in so far as possible and in so far as it is not precluded by the requirement for scrutiny of the judiciary by the public. That application is dismissed as to the remainder. The first plea in law: the grouping of ordinary tiles with finishing tiles in order to determine the constructed normal value 17 The applicant observes that, in order to calculate the dumping margin, the Commission grouped the products at issue by product control number (PCN) using characteristics that may affect price comparability. 18 In the first place, the applicant claims that the Commission incorrectly grouped in a PCN relating to ordinary tiles (‘the PCN at issue’) finishing tiles, namely tiles which have undergone additional processing as compared with ordinary tiles and whose price is, as a result, often higher than that of ordinary tiles, then based itself on the production costs for both of those types of tiles to determine the constructed normal value. 19 The applicant argues that, owing to the inclusion of finishing tiles in the calculation of the production costs of the product at issue for the PCN at issue, the constructed normal value for that product is abnormally high. 20 The applicant states that the dumping was determined using a constructed normal value, which means that it was calculated by comparing, for each export sales transaction separately, the sale price for that transaction with the normal value for the PCN at issue, which was calculated on the basis of production costs including production costs for finishing tiles. It also states that, where the price of a given export sale was lower than the normal value for the PCN at issue, dumping was found to be present. Furthermore, since in 98.3% of the cases the export price was based on ordinary tiles, that led, according to the applicant, to a finding of a high dumping margin. It argues that, on that point, the contested regulation infringes the provisions of Article 2(3) of the basic regulation. 21 In the second place, the applicant complains that, when the Commission revised the calculation of the selling, general and administrative expenses (‘the SG&A expenses’), and of the profit margin for the PCN at issue, it refused to revise the calculation of the production costs of that PCN. 22 In the third place, the applicant claims that taking account of the production costs of finishing tiles for the purposes of determining the amount of the constructed normal value for the PCN at issue resulted in a distortion in the comparison of the normal value and the export price by artificially increasing the amount of the normal value. It states that the proportion of finishing tiles sold on the domestic market was much lower than both the proportion of finishing tiles exported to the European Union and the proportion of finishing tiles in the overall production volume of the PCN at issue. 23 In order to remedy that disconnect, the applicant proposes three alternative methods for calculating production costs. The first replacement option which it proposes consists in excluding finishing tiles from the PCN at issue when calculating production costs. The second option consists in using the production costs of a PCN similar to the PCN at issue (‘the surrogate PCN’). The applicant states that the surrogate PCN also contains finishing tiles. The third option consists in taking into account the production costs for all PCNs. 24 In the fourth place, the applicant submits that the Court of Justice has held that the purpose of the concept of ‘ordinary course of trade’ is to ensure that the normal value of a product corresponds as closely as possible to the normal price of the product on the domestic market of the exporter. However, in its view, that purpose is disregarded by the contested regulation. The applicant adds that the contested regulation is also at odds with ‘the purpose of constructing the normal value’. 25 In the fifth place, the applicant submits that the contested regulation infringes Article 2(5) of the basic regulation. In that regard, it maintains that the inclusion of a disproportionate quantity of finishing tiles in the PCN at issue resulted in a distortion, so that its records do not reasonably reflect the production cost for the PCN at issue. 26 The Commission contends that the plea should be rejected. 27 The applicant claims, in essence, that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment and errors of law in categorising ordinary tiles and finishing tiles under the same PCN, as that affected the determination of the product’s constructed normal value and, therefore, the dumping margin. 28 It is apparent from the contested regulation, in particular recital 28 thereof, and from the file that, for the purpose of establishing the dumping margin, the Commission used the PCN-by-PCN methodology. The PCN structure chosen by the Commission (‘the PCN structure’) enables, inter alia, a distinction to be drawn between finishing tiles, which require more work than ordinary tiles and are sold at higher prices. 29 In the investigation, all sampled exporting producers were asked to provide, through a questionnaire, their export sales and Turkish domestic sales listings as well as their production costs, on the basis of the PCN structure, that is to say, inter alia, by distinguishing ordinary tiles from finishing tiles. 30 Yet the applicant included in a PCN relating to ordinary tiles – the PCN at issue – finishing tiles displaying the same characteristics as the ordinary tiles of that PCN (‘the finishing tiles concerned’). 31 The Commission noted that anomaly and alerted the applicant during the procedure that led to the adoption of the contested regulation, as is apparent from a letter of 10 March 2022 and a company verification report of 28 October 2022. 32 In the absence of any response from the applicant, the Commission calculated the dumping margin for the PCN at issue on the basis of the data provided to it by the applicant, which included the data relating to the finishing tiles concerned. 33 Subsequently, given that there were insufficient sales on the Turkish domestic market in the ordinary course of trade for the PCN at issue, the Commission constructed the normal value for that PCN by applying the first subparagraph of Article 2(3) of the basic regulation. 34 The first subparagraph of Article 2(3) of the basic regulation provides, inter alia, that, when there are insufficient domestic sales of the product at issue in the ordinary course of trade, the normal value is to be calculated on the basis of the cost of production in the country of origin plus a reasonable amount for SG&A expenses and for profits. 35 Thus, the Commission constructed the normal value of the PCN at issue by adding to the average production cost of the product at issue for that PCN the weighted average of the SG&A expenses borne by the applicant and the weighted average profit achieved by it, the latter two values being calculated on the basis of the sale for the PCN at issue on the Turkish domestic market in the ordinary course of trade during the investigation period. 36 On 28 October 2022, when the final disclosure provided for by Article 20(2) of the basic regulation (‘the final disclosure’) was released, the applicant learned of the dumping margin envisaged for it on the basis, inter alia, of the calculations for the PCN at issue referred to in paragraphs 32 to 35 above. It then stated that certain PCNs, including the PCN at issue, were showing unusually high SG&A expenses and profits as compared to their usual ratios. 37 In view of the explanations provided by the applicant and the low sales volume in the ordinary course of trade for the PCN at issue, the Commission agreed to change the SG&A expenses and profits calculation by taking account not only of the sales on the Turkish domestic market relating to that PCN but also all sales of the product at issue on that market. 38 The applicant, having been informed of that change in the calculation of the constructed normal value, produced new data and asked that the production costs of the finishing tiles concerned integrated by it into that PCN be left out of the calculation of the production costs of the PCN at issue (see paragraph 30 above). 39 The applicant also requested the Commission to disregard information provided in its reply to the questionnaire referred to in paragraph 29 above, as, in its view, it contained errors which would not enable the Commission to arrive at a reasonably accurate finding within the meaning of Article 18(3) of the basic regulation. It should be noted that that provision provides that, where the information submitted by an interested party is not ideal in all respects, it shall nevertheless not be disregarded, provided that any deficiencies are not such as to cause undue difficulty in arriving at a reasonably accurate finding and that the information is appropriately submitted in good time and is verifiable, and that the party has acted to the best of its ability. 40 The applicant thus wished to be treated as an exporting producer who had cooperated but not been sampled, which would have had the effect of making it subject to an anti-dumping duty not capable of exceeding the weighted average dumping margin established for the parties making up the sample, pursuant to Article 9(6) of the basic regulation. 41 In response, the Commission stated that the communication of a revised dumping margin calculation following the final disclosure and the request for the application of Article 18(3) of the basic regulation to the information provided (see paragraphs 38 and 39 above) had been done at a stage when it was no longer in a position to verify new data and thus take account thereof. The Commission accordingly took the view that the request had to be rejected and that the new explanations and data provided by the applicant should not be taken into account. 42 The Commission added that the information communicated previously by the applicant during the investigation was not deficient such as to cause undue difficulty in arriving at a reasonably accurate finding and that the information had been appropriately submitted in good time and checked during a verification visit. It concluded that, even if the information were not ideal in all respects, it would not disregard it under Article 18(3) of the basic regulation. 43 Consequently, in the contested regulation, for the calculation of the constructed normal value of the PCN at issue, the Commission took account of both the SG&A expenses and profits from all sales of the product at issue by the applicant on the Turkish domestic market and the production costs of ordinary tiles coming under that PCN, as well as those of the finishing tiles concerned which the applicant had included in that PCN (see paragraph 30 above). 44 As a preliminary point, according to settled case-law, in the sphere of the common commercial policy and, most particularly, in the realm of measures to protect trade, the EU institutions enjoy a broad discretion by reason of the complexity of the economic and political situations which they have to examine. The judicial review of such an appraisal must therefore be limited to verifying 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 in the appraisal of those facts or a misuse of powers (see judgment of 7 April 2016, ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava and Others v Hubei Xinyegang Steel, C‑186/14 P and C‑193/14 P, EU:C:2016:209, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited). 45 That has been held, inter alia, with respect to the determination of the normal value of a product (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 September 2007, Ikea Wholesale, C‑351/04, EU:C:2007:547, paragraphs 40 to 42), which is contested under the present plea. 46 Moreover, according to settled case-law, the purpose of the definition of the product concerned in an anti-dumping investigation is to aid in drawing up the list of the products which will, if necessary, be subject to the imposition of anti-dumping duties. For the purposes of that process, a number of factors may be taken into account, such as, inter alia, the physical, technical and chemical characteristics of the products, their use, interchangeability, consumer perception, distribution channels, manufacturing process, costs of production and quality (judgment of 13 September 2010, Whirlpool Europe v Council, T‑314/06, EU:T:2010:390, paragraph 138, and of 10 October 2012, Gem-Year and Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) v Council, T‑172/09, not published, EU:T:2012:532, paragraph 59). 47 Furthermore, the definition of the product in an anti-dumping investigation does not prevent the EU institutions from subdividing the product into individual product types or models or from relying on model-by-model or type-by-type comparisons between the normal value and the export price (judgment of 5 April 2017, Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener v Council, C‑376/15 P and C‑377/15 P, EU:C:2017:269, paragraph 59). 48 Moreover, Article 2(10) of the basic regulation provides that a fair comparison is to be made between the export price and the normal value, which comparison is to be made at the same level of trade and in respect of sales made at, as closely as possible, the same time and with due account taken of other differences which affect price comparability. 49 However, the price of the products concerned by an anti-dumping investigation may vary depending on the characteristics of those products. The proportion of products having certain characteristics affecting prices is sometimes different in terms of the sales of an exporting producer on the domestic market and that producer’s export sales to the European Union. In such a case, a comparison between the average normal value calculated for the product taken as a whole and the export price would not be fair within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the basic regulation. Consequently, adjustments enabling a fair comparison to be ensured between the normal value and the export price are necessary. 50 In order to limit recourse to such adjustments, the Commission may distinguish different PCNs within the products concerned by the investigation. Those PCNs are established to group the products having the same characteristics affecting the prices and their comparability. In that manner, the products sold on the EU market and on the exporting producer’s domestic market having the same characteristics are compared with each other, without it being necessary to then make adjustments. 51 Thus, where the product at issue is a product having different characteristics, including technical, and, consequently, prices which can vary significantly according to those characteristics, the PCN-by-PCN method of analysis, which aims to compare the normal value and the export price of products whose characteristics and resale prices are similar, is not only not prohibited but may even be more appropriate (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 November 2015, Einhell Germany and Others v Commission, T‑73/12, EU:T:2015:865, paragraph 76). 52 Before the Court, in the first place, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed Article 2(3) of the basic regulation by including the finishing tiles concerned in the PCN at issue. 53 In that regard, it should be borne in mind that the first subparagraph of Article 2(3) of the basic regulation, the only subparagraph of that paragraph which is relevant to the present case, provides, inter alia, that, when there are insufficient domestic sales of the product at issue in the ordinary course of trade, the normal value is to be calculated on the basis of the cost of production in the country of origin plus a reasonable amount for SG&A expenses and for a reasonable profit (see paragraph 30 above). 54 Thus, the first subparagraph of Article 2(3) of the basic regulation does not provide for any specific obligation for the Commission as to the use of PCNs. Hence that provision may not be interpreted as prima facie prohibiting the costs of production of products not coming under a PCN from being taken into account for the calculation of the constructed normal value of that PCN. 55 It is true that the PCN-by-PCN method must be applied consistently (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 November 2015, Einhell Germany and Others v Commission, T‑73/12, EU:T:2015:865, paragraphs 99 and 143). 56 In the present case, however, the applicant incorrectly included finishing tiles in the PCN at issue. It was duly informed of its error and did not modify the data submitted to the Commission within a reasonable time, whereas there were no particular circumstances justifying such a delay. 57 In that regard, the fact that, first, the orders for the finishing tiles concerned and the ordinary tiles of the applicant were grouped and, second, the customs authorities had advised the applicant not to use a specific code for the finishing tiles concerned in the customs transaction had no bearing on the applicant’s ability to categorise the data it provided to the Commission in a manner that respected the PCN structure. In particular, as regards the second element, the Commission stated, correctly, that it did not request the applicant to complete a customs declaration, but rather a sales listing in an anti-dumping questionnaire. Those are separate documents originating from different authorities and whose use also pursues different purposes. Hence, the fact that one of those documents was completed with certain products grouped does not imply that the other document was completed according to the same grouping. 58 Furthermore, the Commission explained, in the course of the procedure that led to the adoption of the contested regulation, the reasons why it had taken the data provided to it by the applicant into consideration (see paragraphs 41 and 42 above), without the latter alleging in that regard before the Court that there had been an infringement of Article 18 of the basic regulation. 59 Moreover, although the applicant refers to an artificial reduction in the normal number of commercial transactions arising from the costs of production of the finishing tiles concerned being taken into account for the calculation of the constructed normal value of the PCN at issue, it is not thereby claiming that Article 2(3) of the basic regulation was infringed on the ground that the Commission incorrectly used a constructed basic value. 60 In those circumstances, the applicant may not criticise the Commission for having included the finishing tiles concerned in the PCN at issue, with the result that the complaint alleging infringement of Article 2(3) of the basic regulation must be rejected. 61 In the second place, the applicant complains that, when the Commission revised the calculation of the SG&A expenses and of the profit margin, it refused to do so for the production costs. 62 As stated in paragraph 34 above, the first subparagraph of Article 2(3) of the basic regulation provides that, when there are insufficient domestic sales of the product at issue in the ordinary course of trade, the normal value is to be calculated on the basis of the cost of production in the country of origin plus a reasonable amount for SG&A expenses and for reasonable profits. 63 As regards the SG&A expenses and profits, Article 2(6) of the basic regulation provides that the amounts corresponding to the SG&A expenses and profits are based on actual data relating to production and sales in the ordinary course of trade. It also provides that, where those amounts may not be determined on that basis, other calculation methods may be employed, which are based on the ordinary course of trade, as expressly stated in point (b) thereof and from a contextual interpretation of points (a) and (c) thereof, in the light of the first subparagraph of Article 2(1), the first subparagraph of Article 2(3), and the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 2(6) of the basic regulation. 64 Thus, Article 2(6) of the basic regulation introduces a specific method for determining SG&A expenses and profits in the scenario where the normal value has to be constructed. That method is based on data relating to the ordinary course of trade. 65 On the contrary, as regards production costs, the first subparagraph of Article 2(3) of the basic regulation provides that, for the calculation of those costs, the data relate to the products manufactured in the country of origin. 66 Thus, the data relating to the calculation of production costs are not limited to those products which were sold in the ordinary course of trade. The absence of such a limitation seems to be appropriate, since the costs of production are, in principle, independent of how the product is sold and of compliance, in that regard, with the rules of full competition. 67 In the present case, the Commission calculated the weighted average of SG&A expenses borne by the applicant and the average profits achieved by it solely on the basis of the sales for the PCN at issue on the Turkish domestic market in the ordinary course of trade during the investigation period (see paragraph 35 above). That then led the Commission, in view of the explanations provided by the applicant and the low sales volume in the ordinary course of trade on the Turkish domestic market for the PCN at issue, to change the SG&A expenses and profits calculation by taking account not only of the sales on the Turkish domestic market relating to that PCN but also all sales of the product at issue on that market (see paragraphs 36 and 37above). 68 In view of the different methods of calculation provided for by the relevant provisions of the basic regulation for both the SG&A expenses and profits as well as production costs (see paragraphs 62 to 66 above), inasmuch as the data relating to the calculation of the latter are not limited to those products which were sold in the ordinary course of trade, but include all products manufactured in the country of origin, the Commission was correct, in respect of production costs, not to change the calculation method equivalent to the change it had made for SG&A expenses and profits (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 May 2024, Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission, C‑261/23 P, EU:C:2024:440, paragraph 57). 69 It follows from the foregoing that the complaint alleging inconsistency between, on the one hand, the method for calculating production costs and, on the other, SG&A expenses and profit, must be dismissed. 70 In the third place, the applicant claims that taking the production costs of finishing tiles into account for the purposes of determining the amount of the constructed normal value for the PCN at issue resulted in a distortion by artificially increasing that amount. 71 The PCN-by-PCN method allows products having different characteristics that may affect prices not to be grouped, whereas the respective proportions of those products in exports and sales on the domestic market vary. Avoiding such a grouping may turn out to be appropriate, since it could artificially create differences between export prices and prices on the domestic market (see paragraphs 49 to 51 above). 72 In the present case, the Court finds that, for the PCN at issue, the share of the finishing tiles concerned is higher for exports to the EU than for sales on the domestic market. Since those tiles are more expensive, grouping them with ordinary tiles is potentially advantageous for the applicant, inasmuch as it will tend to reduce the dumping margin. 73 However, the normal value was not calculated on the basis of actual sales on the domestic market, it was constructed. Thus, the favourable effect for the applicant referred to in paragraph 72 above was neutralised. 74 The use of a constructed normal value even had an unfavourable effect for the applicant, inasmuch as, in order to determine that value, the Commission took account of production costs for all products coming under the PCN at issue, irrespective of whether or not they are sold on the domestic market, which, given the very low proportion of finishing tiles sold on the Turkish domestic market in relation to their proportion of the overall production volume of that PCN, substantially increased average production costs and, therefore, the amount of the constructed normal value. 75 In that regard, first, in so doing, the Commission did not legally misinterpret Article 2(3) of the basic regulation. That provision provides that the constructed normal value is to be calculated on the basis of the cost of production in the country of origin, without the market on which the sale of the products at issue is specified. Such an absence of geographical delimitation seems, moreover, to be appropriate, inasmuch as production costs are not, in principle, contingent on factors relating to the market on which the products are sold, such as the costs of transport to that market or its competitive structure. 76 Second, the applicant is incorrect in criticising the Commission for the unfavourable consequence referred to in paragraph 74 above, since the grouping of the finishing tiles concerned with ordinary tiles is the result of its own actions (see paragraphs 56 and 58 above). 77 Moreover, the Court finds that, given the grouping done by the applicant, the finishing tiles concerned were taken into account for the calculation of the export price of the PCN at issue. 78 Consequently, in order to satisfy the requirement of a fair comparison between the export price and the normal value, within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the basic regulation (see paragraph 48 above), if the finishing tiles are excluded from the calculation of the normal value for the PCN at issue and, in particular, from the calculation of production costs, then they should also be excluded from the calculation of the export price. 79 The Commission states, without being contradicted on that point, that the applicant never presented a complete set of data in which the finishing tiles concerned were separated from the ordinary tiles. 80 In proposing thusly to modify only one of the terms of comparison, the applicant did not make it possible for the Commission to apply the PCN structure in compliance with the fair comparison requirement laid down in Article 2(10) of the basic regulation. 81 It should also be noted that, including in its written pleadings submitted to the Court, the applicant proposes other methods which exclude the finishing tiles concerned from the calculation of the constructed normal value for the PCN at issue, without, however, excluding them from the calculation of the export price of that PCN. 82 Even if the applicant were able to successfully rely on other calculation methods before the Court which relate only to the normal value in order to satisfy the fair comparison requirement within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the basic regulation (see paragraph 48 above), since the finishing tiles concerned are taken into account for the calculation of the export price of the PCN at issue, those tiles or equivalent tiles should also be taken into account for the calculation of the normal value of the PCN. 83 However, first of all, the first method proposed by the applicant consists in excluding the finishing tiles concerned from the production costs of the PCN at issue. Consequently, that option does not satisfy the requirement of a fair comparison between the export price and the normal value. 84 Next, the second method consists in using the production costs of the tiles coming within the surrogate PCN. In that regard, it is apparent from the evidence adduced by the applicant itself and it was confirmed at the hearing that, whilst the production cost of the finishing tiles concerned was higher than 290 Turkish lira (TRL) per square metre, it was lower than TRL 170 per square metre for the tiles coming within the surrogate PCN. Whilst the normal value is calculated on the basis of the costs of production of the surrogate PCN tiles, the export price is always calculated in part using the finishing tiles concerned. Yet the applicant has failed to adduce any evidence establishing that the comparison requirement referred to in paragraph 48 above might, despite that fact, be observed. 85 Lastly, the third method consists in taking into account the production costs for all PCNs. However, the costs of production of the finishing tiles concerned are significantly higher than the costs of production of finishing tiles comping within other PCNs. Yet the applicant has failed to adduce any evidence establishing that the comparison requirement referred to in paragraph 48 above might, despite that fact, be observed. 86 Consequently, whereas the finishing tiles concerned are taken into account for the calculation of the export price of the PCN at issue, the applicant has failed to establish that the other methods it proposes for the calculation of the production costs for the normal value, which is necessary for determining the constructed normal value, can be applied without disregarding the fair comparison requirement laid down in Article 2(10) of the basic regulation. 87 It follows from the considerations set out in paragraphs 76 to 86 above that the applicant may not successfully claim that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in taking into account the costs of production of the finishing tiles concerned for the purpose of determining the amount of the constructed normal value for the PCN at issue. The grouping of the finishing tiles concerned with the ordinary tiles results from the actions of the applicant, who has failed to adduce evidence establishing that the Commission could have excluded the costs of production of the finishing tiles concerned for the purpose of determining the amount of the constructed normal value for the PCN at issue, whilst complying with the requirement of fair comparison between the export price and the normal value within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the basic regulation. 88 In those circumstances, the third complaint relied on by the applicant, alleging a distortion due to the costs of production of the finishing tiles concerned being taken into account for the purpose of determining the amount of the constructed normal value for the PCN at issue, must be dismissed. 89 In the fourth place, it is true, as the applicant submits, that the Court of Justice has held that the purpose of the concept of ‘ordinary course of trade’ is to ensure that the normal value of a product corresponds as closely as possible to the normal price of the product on the domestic market of the exporter (judgment of 1 October 2014, Council v Alumina, C‑393/13 P, EU:C:2014:2245, paragraph 28). The applicant takes the view that that purpose is disregarded by the contested regulation. 90 However, as held in paragraph 66 above, the concept of ‘ordinary course of trade’ is not used for the purpose of calculating production costs enabling a determination to be made of a constructed normal value. 91 Consequently, the case-law referred to in paragraph 89 above, relied on by the applicant, is not relevant to the present case. 92 As to the alleged disregard of ‘the purpose of constructing the normal value’, which is to generate an appropriate replacement value, the applicant has failed to adduce sufficient evidence enabling a conclusion that the disregard of such a purpose could lead to the annulment of the contested regulation. 93 In any event, in the particular circumstances of the present case, that is to say, given the conduct of the applicant and of the Commission in the procedure leading to the adoption of the contested regulation (see paragraphs 29 to 43 above), it may be concluded that the normal value calculated by the Commission is an appropriate replacement value. 94 It follows from the foregoing that the present complaint must be rejected. 95 In the fifth place, it should be borne in mind that Article 2(5) of the basic regulation provides that costs are normally to be calculated on the basis of accounting records kept by the party under investigation, provided that such records are kept in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles of the country concerned and that it is shown that the records reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the product at issue. 96 Article 2(5) of the basic regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the accounting records of the party under investigation are a privileged source of information for establishing the production costs of the product concerned and that the use of data in those records is the general rule and any adaptation or replacement with another reasonable basis is the exception. Given the principle under which a derogation or exception to a general rule must be interpreted restrictively, the Court finds that the exceptions under Article 2(5) of the basic regulation must be interpreted restrictively (judgment of 3 December 2019, Yieh United Steel v Commission, T‑607/15, EU:T:2019:831, paragraph 66 and the case-law cited; see also, to that effect, judgment of 30 May 2024, Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission, C‑261/23 P, EU:C:2024:440, paragraph 53). 97 The applicant claims that its own accounting records did not faithfully reflect the production costs of the products for the PCN at issue, given the grouping in that PCN of ordinary tiles with finishing tiles. It inferred therefrom that the Commission had to adjust those production costs pursuant to Article 2(5) of the basic regulation. 98 In that regard, as rightly observed by the Commission, by its complaint, the applicant does not dispute the fact that its accounting records correctly reflected the production costs for each type of ordinary or finishing tiles taken into account under the PCN at issue. It merely disputes the presence of the finishing tiles concerned in that PCN. 99 The exception provided for in Article 2(5) of the basic regulation does not provide for such an exception, however. 100 It is true that it has been held that the accounting records of the party concerned could legitimately be disregarded in a context of regulated prices entailing a distortion of the market (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 September 2022, Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK “Azot” v Commission, T‑865/19, not published, EU:T:2022:559, paragraphs 71 and 72) or where the transactions involving certain inputs associated with the production and sale of the product did not take place at arm’s length (judgment of 30 May 2024, Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission, C‑261/23 P, EU:C:2024:440, paragraph 38). 101 Similarly, in part 6.33 of its report ‘European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina’ (WT/DS473/AB/R), adopted on 26 October 2016, the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO), regarding Article 2.2.1.1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT) (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 103), contained in Annex 1 A to the Agreement establishing the WTO (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 3) also allowed for the scenario in which the cost of product inputs was distributed among different entities of the same group, given the potentially non-competitive nature of intragroup transactions. 102 However, by merely asserting that the finishing tiles concerned should not be included in the PCN at issue, the applicant cannot be viewed as relying on a distortion of competition causing its records not to reflect reasonably facts associated with the production of the product at issue. 103 Consequently, the arguments relied on by the applicant do not establish that the Commission, by not adjusting production costs of the product at issue for the PCN at issue, infringed Article 2(5) of the basic regulation. 104 It follows from the foregoing that the complaint alleging infringement of Article 2(5) of the basic regulation must be dismissed, as must also the first plea in its entirety. The second plea in law: the Commission’s failure to take into account inflation on the Turkish domestic market during the investigation period 105 Principally, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed Article 2(10)(k) of the basic regulation by refusing to adjust for the inflation recorded on the Turkish domestic market during the investigation period, whereas it adjusted for the devaluation of the Turkish lira against the euro. It relies on a manifest error of assessment. 106 According to the applicant, inflation on the Turkish domestic market had the effect of increasing its prices on that market and, consequently, of artificially increasing the normal value. The applicant states that the increase in its sales prices on the Turkish domestic market mirrored inflation in Türkiye. 107 The applicant adds that its argument relies on facts that are ‘common knowledge’, ‘on the record’ or ‘a generally accepted fact in economics’, namely, the existence of high inflation in Türkiye during the investigation period, the link between devaluation and inflation, the impact of inflation on price comparability and the fact that the applicant’s sales prices on the Turkish domestic market increased during the investigation period by the same amount as the inflation. 108 In the alternative, the applicant claims that the Commission could not, pursuant to Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation, use the order date in order to determine the exchange rate for each sale whilst not, at the same time, making an adjustment on the basis of Article 2(10)(k) of the basic regulation in order to take account of the inflation recorded on the domestic market. 109 According to the applicant, the Commission infringed the provisions of the first subparagraph of Article 2(10) of the basic regulation, which provide that a fair comparison is to be made between the export price and the normal value. 110 The applicant states that, by using the date of the order form to determine the exchange rate applicable, the Commission expressly selected an exchange rate which took account of the devaluation of the Turkish lira. It therefore made an adjustment within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the basic regulation. However, if the Commission intended to make an adjustment in order to take account of the devaluation of the Turkish lira, in the applicant’s submission it should have made the parallel adjustment for inflation on the Turkish domestic market of its own motion. 111 The applicant also maintains that an unbiased authority could not impartially decide to adjust for a macroeconomic factor of the devaluation of the Turkish lira against the euro, which inflated dumping, without then adjusting for the closely linked macroeconomic factor of inflation in order to bring dumping back to the actual level. 112 Lastly, the applicant submits that the Commission attempts to hold it to a higher standard than the one to which it holds itself. According to the applicant, if the devaluation of the Turkish lira during the investigation period sufficed to adjust the export price, then the inflation on the Turkish domestic market and its impact on domestic sale prices also sufficed to justify the normal value. The applicant states that the Commission cannot apply a different standard of proof to take account of the devaluation of the Turkish lira against the euro, on the one hand, and inflation on the Turkish domestic market, on the other hand. 113 The Commission contends that the plea should be rejected. 114 In that regard, it should be recalled that the applicant alleges principally infringement of Article 2(10) of the basic regulation and of Article 2(10)(k). It claims that the Commission incorrectly refused to make an adjustment for the purpose of taking account of the inflation recorded on the Turkish domestic market during the investigation period, whereas it did make an adjustment for the devaluation of the Turkish lira against the euro during that same period by using, for each sale, for the purpose of the currency conversion, the time of the purchase order rather than the date of invoice. 115 In recital 251 of the contested regulation, the Commission highlighted the existence of certain issues relating to currency conversion due to the significant fall of the Turkish lira against the euro during the investigation period. In view of that fact, it considered that the material terms of sale were settled at the time of the purchase order rather than at the date of invoice. It further stated in recital 252 of the contested regulation that ‘given the undeniable exchange rate fluctuation of the Turkish lira against the euro during the investigation period, the Commission deemed it unjustified to consider that the Union customer paid a price in euro higher than the one frozen at the time of the customer purchase order’. 116 According to the applicant, inflation on the Turkish domestic market had the effect of increasing its prices on that market and, consequently, of artificially increasing the normal value. 117 Article 2(10) of the basic regulation provides as follows: ‘A fair comparison shall be made between the export price and the normal value. This comparison shall be made at the same level of trade and in respect of sales made at, as closely as possible, the same time and with due account taken of other differences which affect price comparability. Where the normal value and the export price as established are not on such a comparable basis, due allowance, in the form of adjustments, shall be made in each case, on its merits, for differences in factors which are claimed, and demonstrated, to affect prices and price comparability. Any duplication when making adjustments shall be avoided, in particular in relation to discounts, rebates, quantities and level of trade. When the specified conditions are met, the factors for which adjustment can be made are listed as follows: … (k) Other factors An adjustment may also be made for differences in other factors not provided for under points (a) to (j), if it is demonstrated that they affect price comparability as required under this paragraph, in particular if customers consistently pay different prices on the domestic market because of the difference in such factors.’ 118 It should be borne in mind from the settled case-law referred to above in paragraphs 44 and 45, the application of the adjustments provided for in Article 2(10) of the basic regulation requires an appraisal of complex economic situations and the judicial review of such an appraisal must therefore be limited to verifying whether relevant procedural rules have been complied with, whether the facts relied on have been accurately stated, and whether there has been a manifest error in the appraisal of those facts or a misuse of powers. (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 March 2009, Shanghai Excell M&E Enterprise and Shanghai Adeptech Precision v Council, T‑299/05, EU:T:2009:72, paragraphs 254 and 255). 119 Moreover, in accordance with the Court of Justice’s case-law, the burden of proving that the specific adjustments listed in Article 2(10) of the basic regulation must be made lies with those who wish to rely on them. Thus, where a producer claims that an adjustment of the normal value, in principle downward, or an adjustment of the export price, logically upward, applies, it is for that operator to indicate and to establish that the conditions for granting such an adjustment are satisfied. Conversely, where the EU institutions take the view that it is appropriate to apply a downward adjustment of the export price, it is the responsibility of those institutions to adduce at the very least consistent evidence showing that the conditions for making such an adjustment are fulfilled (judgment of 26 October 2016, PT Musim Mas v Council, C‑468/15 P, EU:C:2016:803, paragraphs 83 and 84). 120 In the present case, the applicant, with whom the burden lies to demonstrate that the conditions for making an adjustment under Article 2(10)(k) of the basic regulation are satisfied, claims that the increase in its sales prices on the Turkish domestic market mirrored the inflation on that market. It adds that its argument relies on facts that are ‘common knowledge’, ‘on the record’ or ‘a generally accepted fact in economics’, namely, the existence of high inflation in Türkiye during the investigation period, the link between devaluation and inflation, the impact of inflation on price comparability and the fact that the applicant’s sales prices on the Turkish domestic market increased during the investigation period by the same amount as the inflation. 121 In view of the case-law cited in paragraph 119 above, the content of the aspects referred to in paragraph 120 above is too general or insufficiently substantiated to support a finding that that contested regulation is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment due to the absence of an adjustment made by the Commission on the basis of Article 2(10)(k) of the basic regulation to take account of inflation in Türkiye. 122 Moreover, the data produced by the applicant does not make out sufficient proof of the trend, among those on which it relies, capable of justifying the adjustment it seeks. 123 Thus, as regards the existence of a sufficient link between inflation and the increase in the applicant’s sales prices on the Turkish domestic market in order to justify an adjustment of the normal value, it is apparent from a graph in the applicant’s written pleadings that the curves corresponding to the two phenomena in question clearly show significant differences in their respective evolutions over the course of the investigation period. Thus, whilst the inflation curve shows a linear progression, the applicant’s sales price curve does not. Hence, as rightly observed by the Commission, the graph in question does not establish a clear correlation between inflation and the increase in the applicant’s sales prices on the Turkish domestic market. 124 It follows from the foregoing that the complaint alleging infringement of Article 2(10)(k) of the basic regulation must be dismissed. 125 In the alternative, the applicant claims that the Commission could not, pursuant to Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation, use the order date in order to determine the exchange rate for each sale whilst not, at the same time, making an adjustment on the basis of Article 2(10)(k) of the basic regulation in order to take account of the inflation recorded on the Turkish domestic market. 126 Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation, entitled ‘Currency conversions’, provides as follows: ‘When the price comparison requires a conversion of currencies, such conversion shall be made using the rate of exchange on the date of sale, except that, when a sale of foreign currency on forward markets is directly linked to the export sale involved, the rate of exchange in the forward sale shall be used. Normally, the date of sale shall be the date of invoice but the date of contract, purchase order or order confirmation may be used if those more appropriately establish the material terms of sale. …’ 127 It should be borne in mind that Article 2(10) of the basic regulation provides that a fair comparison must be made between the export price and the normal value (see paragraph 117 above). 128 In the present case, the Court finds that the comparison of the normal value with the export price required a currency conversion, since the sales of the product at issue on the EU market were completed principally in euros or dollars, whereas on the Turkish domestic market, they were in Turkish lira. The Commission decided to convert the export price into Turkish lira, without the applicant challenging the choice to convert into Turkish lira rather than into euros or, possibly, dollars. 129 The Court similarly finds that the value of the Turkish lira fluctuated considerably, generally devaluing significantly, in particular as against the euro, during the investigation period. 130 The applicant criticises the Commission for having taken account of the exchange rate on the date of the purchase order in recital 251 of the contested regulation. It is clear, however, that it does not allege, per se, disregard by the Commission of the condition provided for in Article 2(10)(j) of the basic regulation, based on the fact that the Commission used a date other than the invoice date. In particular, the applicant does not dispute that the date of the purchase order was the most appropriate date for establishing the material terms of sale within the meaning of the aforementioned provision. 131 The applicant merely claims that the high inflation present on the Turkish domestic market during the investigation period was closely linked to the depreciation of the Turkish lira. Thus, in its view, the Commission could not take account of the depreciation of the Turkish lira as against the euro if it were, at the same time, refusing to make adjustments to take account of the inflation on the domestic market. 132 In view of the applicant’s argument, it is not for the Court to make sure that the Commission duly justified the use of the date of the purchase order instead of the date of the invoice to determine the applicable exchange rate for calculating the export price. In view of the evidence in the file, the Court need only determine whether the Commission, by not making an adjustment for inflation to the normal value whilst using the date of the purchase order for the currency conversion, manifestly disregarded the requirement of fair comparison provided for in Article 2(10) of the basic regulation. 133 In that regard, it is true that the existence of a theoretical link between, on the one hand, the inflation on one market and, on the other, the depreciation of the currency in use on that market cannot be ruled out. 134 However, as regards more specifically the existence of a link between the inflation on the Turkish domestic market and the depreciation of the Turkish lira against the euro, it is apparent from a graph contained in the applicant’s written pleadings (see paragraph 123 above) that the curves showing the two economic phenomena in question clearly show substantial difference in their respective evolutions over the course of the investigation period. Thus, whilst the inflation curve shows a linear progression, the currency depreciation curve does not. Moreover, whilst inflation was on the rise during that period, from an indicator of 100 to an indicator of between 115 and 120, currency depreciation rises from the indicator 100 to a higher indicator of 130. 135 Consequently, the Court does not find that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in taking account of the date of the purchase order for the purpose of determining the applicable exchange rate for calculating the export price, without making an adjustment to take account of the effects which inflation was liable to have on the calculation of the normal value. 136 Even if the link referred to in paragraph 134 above were established, the existence of such a link is not sufficient for a finding that, in the present case, it manifestly undermined the comparability of the normal price with the export price. 137 In order to demonstrate that it was so undermined, it was for the applicant to adduce specific, contextualised and substantiated evidence which would have made it possible, for example, to establish that the impact of inflation on the normal value was comparable, in the present case, to the impact of the depreciation of the Turkish lira as against the euro on the export price, where the exchange rate used for the currency conversion was the one in effect on the date of the invoice and that, consequently, using an exchange rate applicable on another date affected the comparability of the export price and the normal value if no adjustment was made for the latter. 138 The applicant could have, inter alia, adduced evidence relating to the existence of a parallel increase in the prices of the product at issue on the Turkish domestic market and the export prices calculated in Turkish lira on the basis of the exchange rate in effect on the date of the invoice. 139 With such evidence, the applicant would have been able successfully to argue that the inflation had effects on the calculation of the normal value similar to those caused by the currency depreciation on the calculation of the export price. It would thus have provided potentially sufficient evidence to support a finding, in the absence of proof to the contrary adduced by the Commission, that the latter’s use of the exchange rate in effect on the date of the purchase order instead of the exchange rate in effect on the date of the invoice manifestly affected the pre-existing comparability between the normal value and the export price. 140 Since the applicant has not adduced any such evidence, even though it was the best placed to do so, the Court does not find in any event that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in taking account of the date of the purchase order for the purpose of determining the applicable exchange rate for calculating the export price, without making an adjustment to take account of the effects which inflation was liable to have on the calculation of the normal value. 141 It follows from the foregoing that the complaint put forward in the alternative by the applicant must be dismissed, as must, therefore, the present plea in its entirety. The third plea in law: the consequences to be drawn from the unlawful acts relied on in the first and second pleas in law 142 The applicant submits that, as a consequence of the infringements set out in the first and second pleas, the contested regulation also infringes Article 2(10), (12) and Article 9(4), second subparagraph, of the basic regulation. 143 The applicant relies on the use of ‘distorted production costs’ for the PCN at issue and on the non-reduction of the normal value in order to account for inflation on the domestic market. 144 The Commission contends that the plea should be rejected. 145 In that regard, in the first place, the Court notes that the applicant’s line of argument in the present plea is based on the premiss that the Commission used ‘distorted production costs’ for the PCN at issue. Yet, as is apparent from the examination of the first plea, such a premiss has not been established. 146 In the second place, the applicant’s line of argument in the present plea is based on the premiss that the Commission incorrectly used the date of the purchase order for the purpose of determining the exchange rate for the sales made to the European Union, without at the same time making an adjustment to take account of the inflation recorded on the Turkish domestic market. Yet, as is apparent from the examination of the second plea, such a premiss has not been established. 147 It follows from the foregoing that the third plea must be rejected. The fourth plea in law: the injury to the Union industry and, more particularly, to the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry 148 The applicant claims that the Commission failed to make a proper injury assessment and that the contested regulation, which thereby infringes Article 3(2), (5) and (6) of the basic regulation, read in conjunction with Article 17(1) of that regulation, is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. It puts forward two complaints in that regard. 149 As regards the first complaint, the applicant claims that the Commission concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury on the basis of a single negative macroeconomic indicator, namely, a decrease in the Union industry’s market share, without taking into account all the positive indicators relating to it, namely, the increases in volume of Union sales, profitability, unit sales prices and productivity. 150 The applicant adds that the Union industry retains most of the market share, whereas the market share of dumped imports is still very low. 151 The applicant further adds that the volume of sales in the European Union grew by 20 million square metres, that the profitability of the Union industry increased by 110%, that the unit sales prices increased by 19% and that productivity increased by 3%. Similarly, in its submission, the volume of exports of the Union industry increased significantly. 152 As regards the second complaint, the applicant claims that the Commission’s analysis of the microeconomic indicators is flawed. That complaint is based on the premiss that the sample of Union producers (‘the sample’) is not representative. In that regard, the applicant alleges an infringement of Article 17(1) of the basic regulation. 153 The applicant argues that that a set of indicators shows that the data produced from the sample differs markedly from the data relating to the Union industry as a whole. 154 The applicant relies on those indicators in order to claim that the sample was not representative as regards production costs which were significantly higher for the sampled producers than for Union producers as a whole. 155 According to the applicant, given that obvious disconnect, the sample, which includes only one large producer in the category of ‘large producers’ (see paragraph 156 below) and covers only 6% of the estimated total production, cannot be regarded as being representative of the production or sales of the product at issue within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the basic regulation. 156 Moreover, also in order to dispute the representativeness of the sample, the applicant adds that, in the investigation, the Commission decided to establish three categories of Union producers (large, medium-sized and small) and created a sample so that each category was represented. Thus, according to the applicant, the sample consisted of one large, two medium-sized and three small producers. In contrast, according to the applicant, in sampling Turkish exporting producers, the Commission did not consider it necessary to select exporting producers of various production sizes and sampled the exporters with the largest volume of EU sales in the investigation period. 157 The Commission contends that the plea should be rejected. 158 In that regard, it should be borne in mind, as a preliminary point and as an extension of the case-law referred to previously in paragraphs 44 and 45 above, that the determination of injury rests on the assessment of economically complex situations in respect of which the EU institutions enjoy a broad discretion and that the judicial review of such an appraisal must be limited to verifying 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 in the appraisal of those facts or a misuse of powers (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 September 2007, Ikea Wholesale, C‑351/04, EU:C:2007:547, paragraphs 40 and 41). 159 Article 3(2) of the basic regulation, relating to the determination of injury, provides as follows: ‘A determination of injury shall be based on positive evidence and shall involve an objective examination of: (a) the volume of the dumped imports and the effect of the dumped imports on prices in the Union market for like products; … (b) the consequent impact of those imports on the Union industry.’ 160 In the context of the present action, even though the applicant formally relies on infringement of Article 3(2) of the basic regulation, its line of argument is in fact limited to a challenge relating to Article 3(2)(b) of that regulation. That challenge, in fact, alleges material injury suffered by the Union industry inasmuch as the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry has not been established by the Commission in the contested regulation. 161 As regards the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry, Article 3(5) of the basic regulation provides as follows: ‘The examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Union industry concerned shall include an evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, including the fact that an industry is still in the process of recovering from the effects of past dumping or subsidisation; the magnitude of the actual margin of dumping; actual and potential decline in sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return on investments and utilisation of capacity; factors affecting Union prices; actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital or investments. This list is not exhaustive, nor can any one or more of these factors necessarily give decisive guidance.’ 162 It follows from Article 3(5) of the basic regulation that the EU institutions have the task of evaluating all relevant economic factors and indices which have a bearing on the state of that industry, and one or more of those factors does not necessarily give decisive guidance. That provision thus gives those institutions discretion in the examination and evaluation of the various items of evidence (judgment of 10 July 2019, Caviro Distillerie and Others v Commission, C‑345/18 P, not published, EU:C:2019:589, paragraph 21). 163 It is also apparent from the case-law that, although the examination by the institutions must lead to the finding that the injury to the Community industry is material, it is not necessary for all the relevant economic factors and indices to show a negative trend (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 October 2011, CHEMK and KF v Council, T‑190/08, EU:T:2011:618, paragraph 114). 164 A finding of material injury is not necessarily incompatible with the fact that some, or even several, of the factors referred to in Article 3(5) of the basic regulation show a positive trend, provided, however, that in such a case the EU institution concerned provides a convincing analysis which demonstrates that the positive development of certain factors is outweighed by a negative development of other factors (see judgment of 28 September 2023, Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission, C‑123/21 P, EU:C:2023:708, paragraph 145 and the case-law cited). 165 In the present case, as is apparent from recital 303 of the contested regulation, for the purpose of determining the impact of dumped imports on the Union industry, the Commission drew a distinction between macroeconomic and microeconomic injury indicators. It evaluated the macroeconomic indicators on the basis of data contained in the reply of the European Ceramic Tile Manufacturers’ Association to the questionnaire sent to it and relating to all Union producers, crosschecked where necessary with trade statistics available from Eurostat (the statistical office of the European Union) and the questionnaires completed by six of the sampled Union producers. As to the microeconomic indicators, they were analysed on the basis of the responses of those six producers to those questionnaires. 166 The examination of all of the indicators concerned the period from 1 January 2018 to the end of the investigation period (‘the period considered’), as is apparent from recital 102 of the contested regulation. 167 In recital 304 of the contested regulation, the Commission stated that the macroeconomic indicators taken into account to assess the injury suffered by the Union industry were: production, production capacity, capacity utilisation, sales volume, market share, growth, employment, productivity, magnitude of the dumping margin, and recovery from past dumping. 168 In recital 305 of the contested regulation, the Commission stated that the microeconomic indicators taken into account to assess the injury suffered by the Union industry were: average unit prices, unit cost, labour costs, inventories, profitability, cash flow, investments, return on investments, and ability to raise capital. 169 In part 4.5 of the contested regulation, entitled ‘Conclusion on injury’, with respect to the macroeconomic injury indicators, the Commission found, in recital 336 of that regulation that, in the period considered, the Union industry had not been able to benefit from an expanding market. Thus, production, production capacity, capacity utilisation and employment stayed at the same level throughout that period and Union sales had increased more slowly than consumption, leading to a decrease in the Union industry’s market share, which decreased from 90.1% in 2018 to 87.1% over the course of the investigation period. 170 In recital 337 of the contested regulation, as regards the microeconomic injury indicators, the Commission found that despite the increase in its sales price, the Union industry could not raise prices in the Union to levels high enough to recover its costs during most of the period considered. Hence, throughout that period, the Union industry was either lossmaking or just breaking even. It is also stated in that recital that, in that context, investments had decreased by 62%. 171 In recital 337 of the contested regulation, as regards the macroeconomic indicator, the Commission further added that production capacity had remained unchanged. 172 Lastly, in recital 338 of the contested regulation, it is stated that ‘on the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation.’ 173 The following recitals in part 4.5 of the contested regulation are devoted to the comments lodged by the parties concerned on the conclusion set out in paragraph 172 above, which had been communicated to them in the final disclosure, and to the Commission’s responses to those comments. In those recitals, the Commission merely confirms its previous analysis in the final disclosure and, consequently, the conclusion set out in paragraph 172 above. 174 The applicant claims that the Commission failed to make a proper injury assessment and that the contested regulation, which thereby infringes Article 3(2)(b) and (5) of the basic regulation, read in conjunction with Article 17(1) of that regulation, is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. 175 It should be borne in mind that the different conclusions set out in an anti-dumping regulation cannot be interpreted alone, but must be so in the light of all the reasoning developed therein (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 February 2017, Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council, T‑162/14, not published, EU:T:2017:124, paragraph 210 and the case-law cited). 176 Therefore, it is appropriate, in principle, to carry out an overall examination of the Commission’s assessment of the injury allegedly suffered by the Union industry (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 September 2015, Bricmate, C‑569/13, EU:C:2015:572, paragraphs 56 and 64). 177 However, in support of the present plea, the applicant relies on a complaint alleging that the analysis of the microeconomic indicators is incorrect. That complaint is based on the premiss that the sample is not representative. Thus, that complaint, if upheld, would be liable to reduce the number of relevant facts on the basis of which the Commission could base itself in order to determine the impact of dumped imports on the Union industry. It should accordingly be examined beforehand. 178 It should be noted that Article 17(1) of the basic regulation provides for two sampling methods. Thus, an investigation may be limited to a reasonable number of parties, products or transactions by using samples which are statistically valid on the basis of information available at the time of the selection, or to the largest representative volume of production, sales or exports which can reasonably be investigated within the time available. 179 The existence of those two methods was referred to by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 15 June 2017, T.KUP (C‑349/16, EU:C:2017:469, paragraph 30). It held that, in cases where the number of complainants, exporters or importers, of types of product or transactions is large, the composition of a sample is likely to be determined according to two alternative methods. The Court of Justice stated that the investigation may be limited to a reasonable number of parties, products or transactions by using samples which are statistically representative on the basis of information available at the time of the selection. It also stated that the investigation could, at the discretion of the institutions, also be limited to the largest volume of production, sales or exports which can reasonably be investigated within the time available. 180 Moreover, by way of extension of the case-law referred to previously in paragraphs 44 and 45 and in paragraph 158 above, the Court of Justice held that the institutions enjoyed a broad discretion in the choice of sampling, so that the EU Courts must, in the context of their review, restrict themselves to verifying that that choice is not based on incorrectly established facts or vitiated by a manifest error of assessment (judgment of 15 June 2017, T.KUP, C‑349/16, EU:C:2017:469, paragraph 27). 181 It follows that, where they select the second sampling method, the EU institutions have some discretion, relating to the prospective assessment of what it is reasonably possible for them to accomplish in the conduct of their investigation within the prescribed time limit (judgment of 15 June 2017, T.KUP, C‑349/16, EU:C:2017:469, paragraph 31). 182 However, the applicant may adduce evidence capable of establishing that the sample was not representative (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 June 2017, T.KUP, C‑349/16, EU:C:2017:469, paragraph 34). 183 In the present case, the applicant does not dispute the use of a sample or the choice of the sampling method, namely the largest volume representative of production, sales or exports which can reasonably be investigated within the time available. It argues, however, that a set of indicators shows that the same was not representative of the Union industry as a whole. 184 According to the applicant, in view of that disconnect, the sample, which includes only one undertaking in the category of ‘large producers’ and covers only 6% of estimated total production, cannot be regarded as being representative of the production or sales of the product at issue within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the basic regulation (see paragraph 178 above). 185 The first indicator relied on by the applicant results from the comparison between the export price of the sampled producers and that of Union producers as a whole, as it emerges from the data resulting from the reply of the European Ceramic Tile Manufacturers’ Association to the Commission’s questionnaire from Eurostat. According to the applicant, it is apparent from such a comparison that the export price of the sampled producers is significantly higher than that of Union producers as a whole. 186 In that regard, the applicant refers to the data in Tables 12 and 13 of the contested regulation. It is apparent from those tables that, in 2018, the unit cost of production for the producers in the sample, namely EUR 13.60 per square metre, represented 158.50% of the average export price for all producers in the European Union, namely EUR 8.58 per square metre. That percentage was 161.90% in 2019, 132.46% in 2020 and 128.16% during the investigation period. 187 Another indicator relied on by the applicant results from a comparison between the unit cost of production of the sampled producers and the export price of Union producers as a whole, as it emerges from the data resulting from the response of the European Ceramic Tile Manufacturers’ Association to the Commission’s questionnaire and from Eurostat. According to the applicant, it is apparent from such a comparison that the former is significantly higher than the latter. 188 In that regard, the applicant refers to the data in Tables 7 and 12 of the contested regulation. It is apparent from those tables that, in 2018, the unit cost of production for the producers in the sample, namely EUR 9.79 per square metre, represented 114.10% of the average export price for all producers in the European Union, namely EUR 8.58 per square metre. That percentage was 129.89% in 2019, 128.81% in 2020 and 122.80% during the investigation period. 189 The applicant relies on those indicators in order to claim that the sample was not representative as regards production costs which, according to the applicant, were significantly higher for the sampled producers than for Union producers as a whole. 190 The Court notes that certain factors referred to in paragraphs 185 to 188 above are to be found in the part of the contested regulation devoted to injury and, in particular, to the situation of the Union industry, whilst others are to be found in the part of that regulation devoted to other potential factors which may have caused the injury. In that latter part, the Commission examines separately the evolution, over the course of the period considered, of exports, on the one hand, of the Union industry as a whole, and of the sampled producers, on the other. 191 It was thus by drawing links between data dispersed throughout the contested regulation that the applicant was able to identify what it believes to be a disconnect between the data included in the sample and the data of the Union producers as a whole. 192 Consequently, the Commission may not criticise the applicant for having failed to submit observations on the sample selection within the time limit granted to it in the procedure that led to the adoption of the contested regulation, even if such an argument could be successfully put forward. 193 According to the applicant, the facts concerned highlight the existence of substantial differences between the data from the sample and the data relating to the Union industry as a whole. The substantial and consistent nature of those differences suggests that the sampled producers had significantly higher production costs than the Union producers as a whole. Thus, according to the applicant, the sample is not representative of the Union production within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the basic regulation. 194 However, as is apparent from recital 306 of the contested regulation, the Commission ensured that the sample reflected the diversity of Union producers, a point not disputed by the applicant. Thus, it took account of the fragmentation of the Union industry by distinguishing the large, medium-sized and small producers, by ensuring that each type of producer was represented and by weighting relevant microeconomic indicators based on a ratio reflecting the share of each type of producer in the Union production. The Commission also ensured the representativeness of the sample in terms of the geographical distribution of the Union industry, the sample covering the Member States in which around 90% of the Union production was situated. 195 Thus, the method used by the Commission ensured that, although the sample represented only 6% of the Union production, it was representative thereof. 196 In that regard, the Court notes that no minimum threshold has been applied in the line of case-law relating to Article 17(1) of the basic regulation (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 September 2015, Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland, C‑687/13, EU:C:2015:573, paragraphs 86 to 94). 197 Moreover, although the sample included only one large producer whilst, according to the applicant, the large producers account for over half of the Union production, as stated in paragraph 194 above, the Commission applied a ratio to the relevant microeconomic indicators. That ratio was 53% for the large producers, which corresponds to the share of the Union production attributed to them by the applicant. 198 Given the method used to compile the sample, it must be regarded as representative within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the basic regulation. 199 Consequently, the inconsistencies observed in paragraphs 185 to 189 above between, on the one hand, the data emerging from the sample and, on the other, the data resulting from the reply of the European Ceramic Tile Manufacturers’ Association to the Commission’s questionnaire and from Eurostat do not establish that the manner in which that sample was compiled by the Commission is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. 200 The same holds true a fortiori for the other factors relied on by the applicant in that regard, namely the fact that the export price for Union producers included in the sample was higher than their production costs and that, consequently, their export sales were profitable, as well as the fact that the volume of Union industry exports had increased between 2018 and 2021. Those factors do not establish a divergence between, on the one hand, the data from the sample and, on the other, the data resulting from the reply of the European Ceramic Tile Manufacturers’ Association to the Commission’s questionnaire and from Eurostat. 201 Lastly, as regards the separate argument relating to the difference between the method used to compile the sample and that used to compile the sample of Turkish exporting producers (see paragraph 156 above), it should be borne in mind that neither Article 17(1) of the basic regulation, Article 3 of that regulation nor the principle of equal treatment require that the same method be used to compile those two samples. On the contrary, Article 17(2) of the basic regulation states that the final selection of parties, types of products or transactions made under the sampling provisions is to rest with the Commission (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 September 2015, Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland, C‑687/13, EU:C:2015:573, paragraph 87). 202 It follows from the considerations set out in paragraphs 183 to 201 above that, as regards microeconomic injury indicators, the Commission made no manifest error of assessment in finding, in recital 337 of the contested regulation, that, despite the increase in its sales price, the Union industry could not raise prices in the European Union to levels high enough to recover its costs during most of the period considered and that, as a result, throughout the period considered it was either lossmaking or just breaking even and that, in that context, investments had decreased by 62% (see paragraph 170 above). 203 Moreover, the Court finds that, with respect to the macroeconomic injury indicators, in the period considered, the Union industry was unable to benefit from an expanding market. Thus, production, production capacity, capacity utilisation and employment stayed at the same level throughout that period and Union sales increased more slowly than consumption, leading to a decrease in the Union industry’s market share, which went from 90.1% in 2018 to 87.1% over the course of the investigation period (see paragraphs 149, 150 and 169 above). 204 It is true that a certain number of positive trends were observed. Thus, the Union industry increased its sales on the EU market in absolute terms by around 20 million square metres. It increased its export volumes by 9%. Employee productivity increased by 2%. Its sales profitability decreased from 5.4% to 0.6%. Lastly, the average unit sales price in the European Union increased by 19%. 205 However, given the factors referred to in paragraphs 202 and 203 above, the Court does not find that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in finding, in recital 338 of the contested regulation, that ‘the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic regulation’ (see paragraph 172 above). 206 It follows from the foregoing that the present plea must be rejected, as must, therefore, the action. Costs 207 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. As the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Hitit Seramik Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ to pay the costs. Škvařilová-Pelzl Nõmm Kukovec Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 11 June 2025. V. Di Bucci S. Papasavvas Registrar President * Language of the case: English.