A —

The applicant points out in the first place that with regard to the corrections of 1055, 9200 and 1347 metric tons, the decision expressly states that the undertaking supplied no evidence that this ferrous scrap was used elsewhere than in the steelworks. This evidence would have exempted it from equalization contributions, and the High Authority's observation concludes with a similar complaint regarding the quantity of 364 metric tons. Its activity comprises one sector, which comes under the equalization scheme, and another, the foundry, which does not. It is thus for the defendant to show that the ferrous scrap was actually used in such a way that its acquisition comes within the equalization scheme, without reversing the burden of proof, as it did. Furthermore, the decision cannot be regarded as containing a statement of the reasons on which it is based. For example, it is insufficient to state that the quantity of 10520 metric tons was assessed on the basis of the accounting documents examined when the checks were made on the undertaking in 1957, 1960 and 1961, since no information has been given as to the content or the probative value of these documents and there is no indication of the procedure used to analyse and interpret them. Against this the High Authority objects that the undertaking has never produced accounts for the iron foundry, so that it was impossible to check the allocation of the purchase and consumption of ferrous scrap between the various sectors of the company's activity. It drew up a general statement of movements of ferrous scrap (which moreover only concerned the period before 1 February 1957), in part on the basis of the applicant's declarations and the documents submitted by it in connexion with the input of ferrous scrap in respect of each melt. Since the figures do not agree, it must therefore be concluded that the undertaking was also employing undeclared material in the steelworks. It is of little importance that it claims to prove that the material in question was sold or re-used, and therefore deductable; the point at issue is not concerned with the work of the plants which were able to acquire the necessary material by other means; it is concerned with the surplus stocks in the steelworks. The High Authority disputes on the other hand that it is reversing the burden of proof by adopting this attitude. It says that it is for the undertaking to justify the presence in stock of a greater quantity than that corresponding to its declarations, and to explain why the general statement of movements of ferrous scrap contradicted these declarations. But the Pugliesi company then complains — and not without some apparent justification — that in its reply the High Authority has altered the scope of the dispute and amended the grounds put forward in support of the disputed decision. The latter limited itself to putting forward the lack of evidence of use in the foundry, of sale or of re-use, and to assuming that it was employed in the steelworks or for increasing stocks. The defendant had in no way alleged that the company had acquired other ferrous scrap than that appearing in the purchase invoices and the input records, as the standpoint adopted in the statement of defence might imply. On the basis of the contested decision, the applicant seeks to establish that the quantities in dispute were re-used or used for pig-iron castings — this is the aim of the other submissions in its application which we shall see later; however, the defence amounts to denying that the evidence which the company claims to submit has any value. What are we to conclude from this debate? In the first place it is not denied that the Pugliesi undertaking did not have any industrial book-keeping in the ‘foundry’ sector which does not come under the Community. There is no doubt that it is free, as it says, to adopt for its sections, other than the steel management, the internal organization which it considers most expedient. But this necessarily has repercussions on the sector coming under the Treaty and under the equalization scheme, since a reconstruction of all the movements of ferrous scrap cannot be effected on the basis of aggregate accounts. On the other hand, if the equalization scheme is not to be reduced to a cipher, the High Authority's right must be recognized, and you have recognized it, to assess by way of estimation an undertaking which has no accounts; but in addition the power cannot be denied it to correct a declaration made by an undertaking whose books of account are incomplete, provided that sufficient reasons are given for the corrections made. The undertaking itself still retains the right to dispute before the Court the figures adopted by the High Authority and to defend those arising from its own declarations. Finally, I do not think that it is right to apply with undue strictness the concept of ‘burden of proof’ in such a sphere. In the final analysis, a reasonable degree of certainty must be attained on examining the documents produced by each of the parties and the reply made to them by the opposing party, subject to the Court's power, if it considers that the matter is insufficiently clear, to make an order for an expert's report. With regard to the complaint levelled against the decision of a failure to give a statement of the reasons for it, it seems to me that this cannot be upheld. For each of the corrections made, the High Authority has indicated the reason justifying it. These reasons exist; whether they are accurate or not is a question relating to the substance of the case. We turn now to the other submissions in the application whereby the Pugliesi undertaking disputes the legality of the corrections made to its declarations.