IT IS IN FACT MRS GUALCO'S FAILURE TO PRODUCE SUCH DOCUMENTS WHICH HAS FORCED THE HIGH AUTHORITY TO HAVE RECOURSE TO INDUCTIVE METHODS OF CALCULATION BASED ON THE KNOWN FACTOR OF THE CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY .
A COEFFICIENT OF 900 KWH PER TON OF LIQUID STEEL PRODUCED IS IN LINE WITH THE COEFFICIENT WHICH IS USUALLY APPLIED IN SUCH CASES, AND WITH THE OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS MENTIONED IN THE JUDGMENT IN CASE 18/62 GIVEN ON 16 DECEMBER 1963 BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES .
IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN IN ANY WAY THAT MRS GUALCO'S WORKS WERE IN A TECHNICAL STATE WHICH WAS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH SUCH A COEFFICIENT . FURTHERMORE THE APPLICANT'S ARGUMENTS ARE BASED ON MERE ALLEGATIONS FOR WHICH THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST JUSTIFICATION . SINCE SHE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE DOCUMENTS OF ACCOUNT OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT HER ASSERTIONS OR RENDER THEM PLAUSIBLE, THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR UNDERTAKING AN EXPERT INQUIRY .
THEREFORE THE FIRST GROUND OF COMPLAINT IS UNFOUNDED .
ON THE OTHER HAND THE APPLICANT ALLEGES THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY FIXED THE QUANTITY OF OWN ARISINGS AT TOO LOW A LEVEL WHEN IT CALCULATED THE CONSUMPTION OF FERROUS SCRAP SUBJECT TO THE EQUALIZATION LEVY . SHE HAS NOT PRODUCED DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THIS ALLEGATION, BUT HAS ARGUED THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY'S INSPECTORS COULD, WHEN AT HER PREMISES, HAVE TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF A REGISTER OF WORK CARRIED OUT FOR THIRD PARTIES . HOWEVER SHE HAS NOT PRODUCED THIS REGISTER EITHER, AND HAS BEEN CONTENT TO ASK THAT WITNESSES BE HEARD . SINCE MRS GUALCO HAS NOT LODGED WITH THE COURT THE REGISTER WHICH IT WAS FOR HER TO PRODUCE AS A FIRST STEP, THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR ORDERING SUCH A MEASURE .
THEREFORE THE SECOND GROUND OF COMPLAINT IS UNFOUNDED .
THE APPLICANT THEN CLAIMS THAT THE ELECTRIC CURRENT WAS ALSO USED IN HER UNDERTAKING FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF STEEL CASTINGS, AND THAT THE QUANTITIES OF FERROUS SCRAP FOR SUCH MANUFACTURE ARE EXEMPT FROM EQUALIZATION ACCORDING TO THE DECISION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY ITSELF . THIS COMPLAINT CONSISTS OF A MERE ALLEGATION, AS THE APPLICANT'S OFFERS OF PROOF ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY FACTS WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION . MOREOVER, MRS GUALCO NEVER GAVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THIS TYPE OF MANUFACTURE IN HER DECLARATIONS MADE FOR THE PURPOSES OF FIXING THE GENERAL LEVY .
THEREFORE THE THIRD GROUND OF COMPLAINT IS UNFOUNDED .
THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT AN ASSESSMENT OF HER INCOME MADE BY THE ITALIAN REVENUE AUTHORITIES PROVES THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF HER PRODUCTION CAPACITY MADE BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY WAS EXCESSIVE . HOWEVER THE ESTIMATE OF MRS GUALCO'S INCOME SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES BY MEANS OF AN AGGREGATE LUMP-SUM ESTIMATE, WHICH COULD NOT BE RELEVANT TO THIS CASE . FURTHERMORE, THE EQUALIZATION SCHEME IS BASED ON THE CONSUMPTION OF FERROUS SCRAP BY THE UNDERTAKING, AND NOT ON ITS PROFITS .
THEREFORE THE FOURTH GROUND OF COMPLAINT IS UNFOUNDED .
IN HER REPLY