SOLIDIFIED OR NOT .
THEREFORE THE APPLICANT'S ARGUMENT THAT THE MOLTEN PIG IRON WHICH IT PRODUCES IN ITS BLAST FURNACES DOES NOT BELONG TO THE CATEGORY OF " FOUNDRY AND OTHER PIG IRON " MUST BE REJECTED .
( B ) HOWEVER, IT IS STILL NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION WHETHER, IN RELATION TO THE PIG IRON AT ISSUE, THE APPLICANT IS AN UNDERTAKING " ENGAGED IN PRODUCTION " WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 80 OF THE ECSC TREATY, IN OTHER WORDS, THEREFORE, WHETHER THIS PIG IRON IS A " PRODUCT " WITHIN THE MEANING OF PARAGRAPH ( 1 ) OF ANNEX I .
THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE SAID PIG IRON USUALLY EXISTS ONLY FOR A SHORT PERIOD DURING THE PROCESS OF PRODUCING IRON CASTINGS, THE FINISHED PRODUCTS TO THE MANUFACTURE OF WHICH THE APPLICANT'S PRODUCTION PROGRAMME IS GEARED AND WHICH ARE THEMSELVES OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMUNITY .
P . 227
IF THE WORD " PRODUCTION " IS GIVEN ITS ORDINARY MEANING, THE SAID PIG IRON IS UNQUESTIONABLY " PRODUCED " BY THE APPLICANT .
THE ONLY QUESTION THEREFORE IS WHETHER THE AUTHORS OF THE TREATY INTENDED TO GIVE THE WORD " PRODUCTION " A MORE LIMITED APPLICATION IN LAW .
1 . SUCH A LIMITATION COULD FIRST OF ALL STEM FROM THE ARGUMENT THAT UNDER THE SYSTEM OF THE TREATY " PRODUCTION " WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TREATY AND IN PARTICULAR OF ARTICLE 80 CONSISTS SOLELY IN THE MANUFACTURE OF GOODS FOR MARKETING .
AT FIRST SIGHT THIS ARGUMENT APPEARS TO BE SUPPORTED BY ARTICLE 1 OF THE TREATY, WHICH STATES THAT THE COMMUNITY IS " FOUNDED UPON A COMMON MARKET ". IN FACT THE ONLY CONCLUSION WHICH IT APPEARS POSSIBLE TO DRAW FROM THIS IS THAT, IN ORDER TO DELIMIT THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMUNITY THE TREATY APPLIES ONLY TO PRODUCTS WHICH ARE IN A FIT STATE TO BE MARKETED .
NEVERTHELESS THE GENERAL PLAN OF ANNEX I SHOWS THAT THE ABOVEMENTIONED ARGUMENT WOULD BE IN CONTRADICTION WITH THE TREATY .
THE FACT IS THAT THAT ANNEX INCLUDES A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF PRODUCTS - FOR EXAMPLE " PIG IRON FOR STEELMAKING ", " LIQUID STEEL CAST OR NOT CAST INTO INGOTS ", " HOT FINISHED PRODUCTS OF ... STEEL ", AND SO ON - WHICH ARE KNOWN TO BE FREQUENTLY, IF NOT NORMALLY, FIRST MANUFACTURED AND THEN TRANSFORMED, IN FACTORIES OR WORKS WHICH ARE SEPARATE BUT DISPOSED OF UNDER THE SAME BUSINESS NAME, INTO PRODUCTS WHICH ARE TECHNICALLY OR ECONOMICALLY DIFFERENT AND WHICH ARE NOT THEREFORE OFFERED FOR SALE ON THE MARKET .
ACCORDINGLY THE ARGUMENT IN QUESTION WOULD LEAD TO THE EXCLUSION FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE TREATY OF A LARGE IF NOT PREPONDERANT PART OF THE PRODUCTION OF THE GOODS LISTED IN ANNEX I, WHICH WOULD CLEARLY BE CONTRARY TO THE INTENTION OF THE AUTHORS OF THOSE PROVISIONS .
FURTHERMORE, THE SAID ARGUMENT WOULD MEAN THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER A PRODUCT WAS A COMMUNITY PRODUCT