FAILING A TIMELY NOTIFICATION BY THE COMMISSION OF ITS INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 10 , IT BELIEVED , AND WAS ABLE HONESTLY TO BELIEVE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 1981 , THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD APPLY THE SAME METHOD AS ITSELF , PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THAT METHOD WAS REASONABLE AND TENABLE .
21 THE COMMISSION DID NOT FINALLY TAKE A VIEW AS TO THE METHOD TO BE APPLIED , IT IS CLAIMED , UNTIL MID-NOVEMBER 1981 , AND IT DID NOT NOTIFY ESTEL OF IT DEFINITIVELY UNTIL ITS LETTER OF 3 FEBRUARY 1982 .
22 SINCE THE METHOD FOR ADJUSTING THE QUOTA UNDER ARTICLE 10 REMAINED UNDETERMINED IN THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 1981 , ESTEL WAS UNABLE TO FORESEE THAT THE DELIVERY OF A QUANTITY OF PRODUCTS FOR RE-ROLLING MIGHT PRODUCE AN EXCESS OVER ITS DELIVERY QUOTA FOR WHICH IT MIGHT THEREFORE BE PENALIZED .
23 THE COMMISSION DENIES THAT ESTEL , IN SPITE OF THE COMMISSION ' S EXCHANGES OF VIEWS IN CORRESPONDENCE AND IN CONVERSATIONS WITH EUROFER - THE EUROPEAN CONFEDERATION OF IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRIES , OF WHICH ESTEL IS A MEMBER - AND WITH ESTEL ITSELF , DID NOT KNOW THE METHOD OF CALCULATION FOR THE ADJUSTMENT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 1981 . INDEED , IN A LETTER DATED 29 SEPTEMBER 1981 , EUROFER CONFIRMED THAT ITS MEMBERS WOULD HAVE NO DIFFICULTY AS TO THE BASIS OF CALCULATION FOR THE ADJUSTMENT PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 10 ; AND THE COMMISSION CLEARLY DEFINED ITS POSITION IN A LETTER DATED 10 NOVEMBER 1981 WHICH WAS SENT TO EUROFER AND , FINALLY , BY TELEX MESSAGE TO ESTEL ON 1 DECEMBER 1981 .
24 IN ANY EVENT , ESTEL COULD AND SHOULD HAVE KNOWN , THE COMMISSION CLAIMS , THAT THE METHOD OF CALCULATION FOR THE ADJUSTMENT HAD TO BE THE SAME AS THAT FOR THE INITIAL QUOTA ; AT THE LEAST , ESTEL KNEW THAT THE REFERENCE PRODUCTION AND DELIVERIES AS WELL AS THE PRODUCTION AND DELIVERY QUOTAS INITIALLY FIXED WERE DETERMINED ON A FLAT-RATE BASIS AND THAT THEY BORE NO RELATION TO ANY GIVEN CUSTOMERS , THAT IS TO SAY , THEY WERE NOT ' ' KUNDENORIENTIERT ' ' .
25 IN CONSEQUENCE , ESTEL ' S METHOD WAS NEITHER OBVIOUS NOR REASONABLE , SINCE THE INITIAL QUOTA HAD ALREADY INCLUDED AN AMOUNT FIXED FOR PRODUCTS FOR RE-ROLLING ; THEREFORE IF ESTEL HAD BEEN GIVEN ITS REQUESTED ADJUSTMENT OF 12 300 TONNES , IT WOULD HAVE OBTAINED THAT QUANTITY TWICE OVER . MOREOVER , ESTEL WAS MISTAKEN IN THINKING THAT DELIVERIES OF PRODUCTS FOR RE-ROLLING COULD GIVE RISE TO A SET-OFF UNDER ARTICLE 11 OF THE DECISION .
26 THE COMMISSION ALSO MAINTAINS THAT ESTEL IS TOO LARGE AN UNDERTAKING TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BE UNAWARE OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE METHOD OF CALCULATION BOTH FOR THE QUOTAS AND FOR THEIR ADJUSTMENT . IF IT HAD IN FACT BEEN UNAWARE , ESTEL WOULD HAVE BEEN