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 . IN SUPPORT OF ITS ARGUMENT, THE APPLICANT HAS PRODUCED EXTRACTS FROM ITS BOOKS OF INVOICES TO ESTABLISH THAT, DURING THE PERIOD IN DISPUTE, ITS SALES OF IRON PRODUCTS INCREASED TO QUANTITIES INCOMPATIBLE WITH A CONSUMPTION OF FERROUS SCRAP OF LESS THAN 4 000 METRIC TONS, SO THAT THE DEFENDANT IMPROPERLY AND WITHOUT SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION LIMITED THE CONSUMPTION OF FERROUS SCRAP IN THE IRON FOUNDRY TO 1 552 METRIC TONS . P.8 THE DEFENDANT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SPECIFIC REPLY TO THE ARGUMENTS THUS PUT FORWARD AND HAS LIMITED ITSELF TO RELYING ON THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETE INDUSTRIAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE IRON FOUNDRY . IT HAS ALSO FAILED TO GIVE ANY PRECISE REASONS FOR THE FIGURES ADOPTED . THE FACTORS PUT FORWARD BY THE APPLICANT HAVE THUS NOT BEEN SUFFICIENTLY REFUTED . IT IS THUS APPARENT THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION CONTAINS NO BASIS FOR APPLYING THE RULES CONCERNING THE HIGH AUTHORITY'S ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO CHARGES UNDER THE EQUALIZATION SCHEME . IN THE SECOND PLACE THE APPLICANT COMPLAINS THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION INCREASED ITS BASIS OF ASSESSMENT TO CONTRIBUTION BY 9 200 METRIC TONS OF FERROUS SCRAP, WHICH THE HIGH AUTHORITY CONSIDERED AS CORRESPONDING TO AN INCREASE IN STOCKS SUBJECT TO EQUALIZATION CHARGES . IT IS SAID THAT THIS IS IN FACT RETURN SCRAP CONSTITUTING OWN RESOURCES WHICH ARE NOT ASSESSABLE BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 4(2 ) OF DECISION NO 2/57 . WHILST THE DEFENDANT PERSISTS IN ITS COMPLAINTS WITH REGARD TO THE INCOMPLETE STATE OF THE UNDERTAKING'S INDUSTRIAL BOOK-KEEPING, IT HAS NOT CONCERNED ITSELF WITH THE ORIGIN OF THE FERROUS SCRAP TO WHICH THE CORRECTIONS RELATED, ON THE GROUND THAT IN ANY EVENT THE QUANTITIES IN QUESTION ARE LIABLE TO EQUALIZATION . AT THE REQUEST OF THE COURT THE DEFENDANT PRODUCED A DOCUMENT ENTITLED ' GENERAL STATEMENT OF MOVEMENTS OF FERROUS SCRAP ' FOR THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 1954 TO JANUARY 1957 . IN ITS OBSERVATIONS ON THE SAME DOCUMENT, THE APPLICANT OBSERVED IN THE COURSE OF THE ORAL PROCEDURE THAT THE RETRIEVALS DECLARED BY IT WERE MUCH LOWER THAN THE AVERAGE OF INTERNAL RETRIEVALS FOR COMPARABLE UNDERTAKINGS, BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE INDUSTRIAL BOOK-KEEPING WITH REGARD TO ITS OWN ARISINGS RETURNED TO STOCK . THE DEFENDANT'S ARGUMENT THAT THE INCREASES IN THE STOCKS IN QUESTION WERE IN ANY EVENT LIABLE TO EQUALIZATION CONTRIBUTIONS, FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE DIFFERENCES FOUND COULD BE EXPLAINED BY THE UNDERTAKING'S INTERNAL RETRIEVALS IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE BOOK-KEEPING IS DEFECTIVE, AS THE DEFENDANT ITSELF SAYS . IN THIS CONNEXION, THE EXPLANATION SUPPLIED BY THE APPLICANT HAD THUS TO BE CONSIDERED AND COULD NOT BE DISMISSED FROM THE OUTSET . THE DEFENDANT HAS HOWEVER LIMITED ITSELF TO THE MERE ASSERTION THAT IT IS FOR THE APPLICANT TO CONVINCE IT AND THAT IT HAS FAILED TO DO SO . ALTHOUGH THE DOCUMENT PRODUCED AT THE REQUEST OF THE COURT SHOWS CONTRADICTIONS IN THE UNDERTAKING'S DECLARATIONS, IT BY NO MEANS ESTABLISHES THE QUANTITY OF 9 200 METRIC TONS STATED IN THE CONTESTED DECISION . THE DEFENDANT HAS SUPPLIED NO OTHER FACTS CAPABLE OF JUSTIFYING THAT ASSESSMENT . THE INCREASE OF 9 200 METRIC TONS IN THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT HAS THUS NOT BEEN SUFFICIENTLY JUSTIFIED IN LAW . THE APPLICATION IS THEREFORE WELL FOUNDED AND THE CONTESTED DECISION MUST BE ANNULLED .