Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1999:273
Date: 1999-10-28
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Second 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 — Injury — Profit margin 
to be used when calculating the target price — Limited to the profit margin that could 
reasonably be expected in the absence of dumping 
(Council Regulation No 2423/88, Arts 4(1) and 13(3)) 
2. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Injury — Discretion of 
the institutions — Judicial review — Factors which may be taken into account 
(Council Regulation No 2423/88, Art. 4) 
II - 3291 
SUMMARY — CASE T-210/95 
3. Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Injury — Profit margin 
to be used when calculating the target price — Review procedures 
(Council Regulation No 2423/88, Art. 4) 
1. In an anti-dumping proceeding, the 
profit margin to be used by the Council 
when calculating the target price that 
will remove the injury to the Commu­
nity industry must be limited to the 
profit margin which the Community 
industry could reasonably count on 
under normal conditions of competi­
tion, in the absence of the dumped 
imports. It would not be consistent 
with Articles 4(1) and 13(3) of the 
basic anti-dumping regulation, Regula­
tion No 2423/88, to allow the Com­
munity industry a profit margin that it 
could not have expected if there had 
been no dumping. The criterion of the 
profit margin necessary to ensure the 
survival of the industry in question is 
not therefore consistent with the basic 
Regulation. 
2. When reviewing the lawfulness of an 
anti-dumping proceeding, the Court of 
First Instance must verify that the 
institutions based their decisions on 
correct material facts and that their 
assessment of those facts was not 
manifestly erroneous, given the situa­
tion at the time when the contested 
measure was adopted. A study con­
cerning the level of profit margins, 
which has not been presented to the 
Commission during the administrative 
procedure, must not to be taken into 
account for the purposes of judicial 
review. 
3. When, in an anti-dumping proceeding, 
it is necessary to determine the profit 
margin to be used in calculating the 
target price that will remove the injury 
to the Community industry, and the 
undertakings in the Community indus­
try have different production costs, 
hence different profit levels, the Com­
munity institutions have no choice, 
when determining the target price, but 
to calculate the weighted average of the 
production costs of the Community 
producers as a whole and to add to it 
the average profit margin which they 
consider reasonable in view of all the 
relevant circumstances. 
II - 3292