OF FERROUS SCRAP SUBJECT TO CONTRIBUTION .
IN THE SIXTH AND SEVENTH RECITALS IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE CONTESTED DECISION THE DIFFERENCES FOUND, WHEN THE CHECKS WERE CARRIED OUT, BETWEEN THE TONNAGES DECLARED AND THE TONNAGES IN FACT SUBJECT TO EQUALIZATION CONTRIBUTIONS, ARE DECLARED TO AMOUNT TO 10 520 METRIC TONS . IN THE EIGHTH RECITAL THE SAID DECISION SHOWS THE CORRECTIONS TO BE MADE AS FOLLOWS :
' 1 055 METRIC TONS OF FERROUS SCRAP PURCHASED WHICH THE UNDERTAKING STATES WERE INTENDED FOR ITS INTEGRATED FOUNDRY ( AN ACTIVITY NOT SUBJECT TO THE TREATY ), WITHOUT HOWEVER SUPPLYING ANY DEFINITE PROOF OF THIS; 9 200 METRIC TONS OF FERROUS SCRAP, WHICH THE UNDERTAKING CONSIDERED AS RETURN SCRAP WITHOUT HOWEVER SHOWING THAT IT HAD USED THESE QUANTITIES FOR THIS PURPOSE; ON THE OTHER HAND THAT QUANTITY MUST BE CONSIDERED AS EQUIVALENT TO AN INCREASE IN THE STOCKS OF FERROUS SCRAP, AS IS CLEAR FROM THE GENERAL STATEMENT OF MOVEMENTS OF FERROUS SCRAP;
364 METRIC TONS OF FERROUS SCRAP SOLD, ORIGINATING FROM THE INTEGRATED FOUNDRY'S STOCKS OF FERROUS SCRAP ( NOT SUBJECT TO CONTRIBUTION ) WHICH THE UNDERTAKING WRONGLY DEDUCTED;
1 347 METRIC TONS OF FERROUS SCRAP TRANSFERRED FROM THE STEELWORKS TO THE FOUNDRY, FOR WHICH OPERATION NO EVIDENCE HAS AS YET BEEN SUPPLIED . '
P.7
IT IS AGREED THAT FOR THE PERIOD TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE CONTESTED DECISION, THE APPLICANT UNDERTAKING USED CERTAIN QUANTITIES OF FERROUS SCRAP IN ITS STEELWORKS AND CERTAIN OTHERS IN ITS INTEGRATED IRON FOUNDRY AND THAT THE LATTER WERE NOT LIABLE TO CHARGES UNDER THE EQUALIZATION SCHEME . IN VIEW OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HIGH AUTHORITY MAY, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, REQUIRE THAT THE TONNAGES OF FERROUS SCRAP NOT SUBJECT TO THE EQUALIZATION CONTRIBUTIONS SHOULD BE FIXED ON THE BASIS OF RELIABLE DATA . THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DATA MAY JUSTIFY RECOURSE TO AN ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT .
IN INDICATING, IN THE RECITAL QUOTED ABOVE, THAT THE APPLICANT UNDERTAKING HAD NOT CORRECTLY DRAWN UP ITS DECLARATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE TONNAGES EXEMPT FROM CONTRIBUTIONS, THE CONTESTED DECISION SETS FORTH, ALBEIT BRIEFLY, THE ESSENTIAL FACTOR ON WHICH IT IS BASED . WHEN IT STATES THE REASONS FOR ITS DECISION, THE DEFENDANT IS NOT BOUND TO EXPLAIN ITS ASSESSMENT IN DETAIL OR TO REPRODUCE THE ACCOUNTING DOCUMENTS AND TECHNICAL ANALYSES ON WHICH ITS ASSESSMENT IS BASED .
THE APPLICANT DISPUTES THE MATERIAL ACCURACY BOTH OF THE REASONS FOR THE CONTESTED DECISION AND OF THE AMOUNT OF THE CORRECTIONS MADE TO ITS DECLARATIONS . THIS CRITICISM DOES NOT RELATE TO THE SUBMISSION OF AN INFRINGEMENT OF AN ESSENTIAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT .
THE REASONS FOR THE CONTESTED DECISION ARE SUFFICIENT IN LAW, AND THE FIRST SUBMISSION IS THEREFORE UNFOUNDED .
THE SECOND SUBMISSION
IN THE FIRST PLACE THE APPLICANT COMPLAINS THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION INCREASED THE BASIS OF ITS ASSESSMENT TO CONTRIBUTION BY 1 055 AND 1 347 METRIC TONS OF FERROUS SCRAP WHICH THE HIGH AUTHORITY WRONGLY REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE AS HAVING BEEN USED IN THE IRON FOUNDRY .