IT MUST THEREFORE BE ACCEPTED THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT IN THIS CASE COMMIT ANY MANIFEST ERROR IN ITS APPRAISAL OF THE FACTS BY APPLYING THE TRANSACTION-BY-TRANSACTION METHOD IN ORDER TO CALCULATE THE DUMPING MARGIN; THIS SUBMISSION MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED .
II - SUBMISSION THAT THE REFUSAL TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE PRICE INCREASES INTRODUCED AFTER THE END OF THE INVESTIGATION PERIOD WAS UNLAWFUL
25 THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT AFTER PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES WERE IMPOSED BY REGULATION NO 744/84 IT COMMUNICATED TO THE COUNCIL THE PRICE INCREASES WHICH IT HAD IMMEDIATELY INTRODUCED; HOWEVER, THE COUNCIL TOOK NO ACCOUNT OF THOSE INCREASES AND DID NOT REFRAIN FROM IMPOSING DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES . THE APPLICANT CONSIDERS IN PARTICULAR THAT THE REASON FOR REFUSING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE VOLUNTARY PRICE INCREASES - NAMELY THAT SUCH INCREASES WERE MADE AFTER THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE INVESTIGATION - IS NOT VALID SINCE IT FAILS TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES AND DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES . FURTHERMORE, REGULATION NO 3017/79 MAKES NO MENTION OF AN INVESTIGATION PERIOD AND SUCH A CONCEPT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLE 2*A OF THE REGULATION, FROM WHICH IT IS CLEAR THAT THE INJURY SUFFERED BY THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY MUST BE ASSESSED WHEN THE PRODUCT ENTERS THE COMMUNITY . LASTLY, IT CLAIMS THAT THE COMMISSION INFRINGED ARTICLE 13 OF REGULATION 3017/79, WHICH PROVIDES THAT A LESSER DUTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED IF IT WOULD BE ADEQUATE TO REMOVE THE INJURY .
26 IT MUST BE STATED THAT REGULATION NO 3017/79 MAKES NO PROVISION FOR THE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OF VOLUNTARY PRICE INCREASES MADE AFTER THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE INVESTIGATION . THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS INCLUDES AN INVESTIGATION, THE INITIATION AND COURSE OF WHICH ARE GOVERNED BY ARTICLE 7 . BY ALLOWING INTERESTED PARTIES TO MAKE KNOWN THEIR VIEWS, THE INVESTIGATION IS INTENDED TO ALLOW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE PROVIDING A BASIS FOR THE TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING OR THE IMPOSITION OF AN ANTI-DUMPING DUTY . IT IS, AT THE SAME TIME, CLEAR FROM THE 14TH AND 15TH RECITALS IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE REGULATION THAT THE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT PREVENT RAPID AND EFFICIENT ACTION BY THE COMMUNITY . IN ORDER TO RECONCILE THOSE TWO OBJECTIVES, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE INVESTIGATION, DURING WHICH THE FACTS TO BE ESTABLISHED OCCURRED, SHOULD BE OF SPECIFIED AND LIMITED DURATION .
27 WITH REGARD TO NTN' S CLAIM THAT ARTICLES 2*A AND 13 OF REGULATION NO 3017/79, WHICH LINK THE IMPOSITION OF AN ANTI-DUMPING DUTY TO THE EXISTENCE OF INJURY, WERE INFRINGED, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT PRICE INCREASES DECIDED UPON AFTER THE END OF THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE INVESTIGATION MAY, WHERE APPROPRIATE, GIVE RISE TO A REVIEW PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 14 OF THAT REGULATION OR RESULT IN THE REFUNDING OF THE DUTY COLLECTED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 15 THEREOF . IT IS THEREFORE IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THAT THE ANTI-DUMPING PROCEEDING MAY NOT BE TERMINATED OR A DECISION TO IMPOSE A DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MAY NOT