THERE BEING ANY CERTAINTY THAT THEY WOULD EVER REGAIN A PLACE IN THE MARKET .
16 IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT, IN SEEKING TO DEMONSTRATE THE URGENCY OF ITS APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT CONFINES ITSELF TO DESCRIBING EFFECTS WHICH ARE INHERENT IN THE IMPOSITION OF ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES, NAMELY A RISE IN THE PRICE OF ITS PRODUCTS AND A CONSEQUENT DIMINUTION OF ITS MARKET SHARE . IT IS IN THE VERY NATURE OF ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES THAT THEY SHOULD RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION BECAUSE THEIR PURPOSE IS TO COUNTERBALANCE THE DUMPING MARGIN WHICH HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AND TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY AGAINST THE INJURY CAUSED BY DUMPING .
17 ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE THAT IN CERTAIN CASES IT IS NECESSARY TO SUSPEND THE IMPOSITION OF A DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY IN ORDER TO PREVENT SERIOUS AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE FROM BEING CAUSED TO THE PARTY REQUESTING SUSPENSION OF THE MEASURE, NEVERTHELESS IT IS CLEAR FROM A CONSISTENT LINE OF DECISIONS OF THE COURT THAT THAT PARTY MUST AT LEAST ADDUCE EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT :
( A ) FIRST, THE DAMAGE SUFFERED BY THE APPLICANT AS A RESULT OF THE IMPOSITION OF THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY IS SPECIAL TO IT ( SEE IN PARTICULAR THE ORDER IN CASE 258/84*R NIPPON SEIKO V COUNCIL (( 1984 )) ECR 4357 ); AND
( B ) SECONDLY, THE BALANCE OF THE INTERESTS AT STAKE POINTS IN ITS FAVOUR IN THE SENSE THAT THE GRANT OF THE INTERIM MEASURES REQUESTED WOULD NOT CAUSE APPRECIABLE INJURY TO THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY ( SEE IN PARTICULAR THE ORDER IN CASE 250/85*R BROTHER INDUSTRIES V COUNCIL (( 1985 )) ECR 3459 ).
18 IT MUST BE SAID THAT THE APPLICANT HAS ADDUCED NO SUCH EVIDENCE . THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAVE SHOWN THAT THE ADOPTION OF THE INTERIM MEASURE REQUESTED WOULD CAUSE APPRECIABLE INJURY TO THE INTERESTS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY . THE MERE REQUIREMENT OF A SECURITY, FOR WHICH THE APPLICANT IS ARGUING, WOULD HAVE CONSIDERABLY LESS PROTECTIVE EFFECT THAN THE COLLECTION OF THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY ITSELF, AND HENCE SUCH A MEASURE WOULD NOT TAKE SUFFICIENT ACCOUNT OF THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY AND WOULD BE LIABLE TO NULLIFY THE EFFECT INTENDED BY THE IMPOSITION OF A DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY .
19 IT MUST FURTHER BE STATED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SUCCEEDED IN DEMONSTRATING THAT THE DAMAGE WHICH IT SUFFERS FROM THE IMPOSITION OF SUCH A DUTY IN THIS CASE IS SPECIAL TO ITSELF . THE DAMAGE WHICH IT CLAIMS TO SUFFER IS OF A KIND WHICH MAY GENERALLY OCCUR WHENEVER A DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY IS IMPOSED .
20 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT PUT FORWARD ANY CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENT DEMONSTRATING THAT IT WOULD SUFFER SERIOUS AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE IF THE INTERIM MEASURE WHICH IT REQUESTS WERE REFUSED .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS,
THE PRESIDENT
BY WAY OF INTERIM DECISION
HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :
( 1 ) THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED