Corte di giustizia UE n. 412/2016

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 2 June 2016 ( * ) (Appeal — [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 412/2013 — Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China — Definitive anti-dumping duty) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑31/15 P, APPEAL under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], brought on 27 January 2015, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA [OSCURATO:PERSONA]., established in Beijing (China), represented by K. Adamantopoulos, avocat, appellant, the other parties to the proceedings being: [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented initially by B. Driessen and S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], acting as Agent, B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, avocat, defendant at first instance, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:SOCIETA], established in Sommacampagna (Italy), Ceramie-[OSCURATO:PERSONA] [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in Brussels (Belgium), [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in Sassuolo (Italy), Verband der [OSCURATO:PERSONA] eV , established in Selb (Germany), represented by R. Bierwagen, Rechtsanwalt, interveners at first instance, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of D. Šváby, President of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], J. Malenovský (Rapporteur) and M. Safjan, Judges, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: M. Wathelet, Registrar: A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], having regard to the written procedure, having decided, after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], to proceed to judgment without an Opinion, gives the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 By its appeal, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. (‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA’) seeks to have set aside the judgment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 18 November 2014 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (T‑394/13 (‘the judgment under appeal’), EU:T:2014:964), by which that court dismissed its application for annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 412/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of China (OJ 2013 L 131, p. 1) (‘the contested regulation’). Legal context [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 1225/2009 2 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51) (‘the basic regulation’) provides in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 thereof, entitled ‘Principles’: ‘1.      An anti-dumping duty may be applied to any dumped product whose release for free circulation in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] causes injury. 2.      A product is to be considered as being dumped if its export price to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is less than a comparable price for the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, as established for the exporting country. 3.      The exporting country shall normally be the country of origin. However, it may be an intermediate country, except where, for example, the products are merely transhipped through that country, or the products concerned are not produced in that country, or there is no comparable price for them in that country. 4.      For the purpose of this [OSCURATO:PERSONA], “like product” means a product which is identical, that is to say, alike in all respects, to the product under consideration, or in the absence of such a product, another product which, although not alike in all respects, has characteristics closely resembling those of the product under consideration.’ 3 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(2) of the basic regulation provides as follows: ‘A determination of injury shall be based on positive evidence and shall involve an objective examination of both: (a)      the volume of the dumped imports and the effect of the dumped imports on prices in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] market for like products; and (b)      the consequent impact of those imports on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] industry.’ 4 According to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(7) of the basic regulation: ‘Known factors other than the dumped imports which at the same time are injuring the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] industry shall also be examined to ensure that injury caused by these other factors is not attributed to the dumped imports under paragraph 6. Factors which may be considered in this respect include the volume and prices of imports not sold at dumping prices, contraction in demand or changes in the patterns of consumption, restrictive trade practices of, and competition between, third country and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] producers, developments in technology and the export performance and productivity of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] industry.’ 5 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 20 of the basic regulation states as follows: ‘1.      The complainants, importers and exporters and their representative associations, and representatives of the exporting country, may request disclosure of the details underlying the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which provisional measures have been imposed. Requests for such disclosure shall be made in writing immediately following the imposition of provisional measures, and the disclosure shall be made in writing as soon as possible thereafter. 2.      The parties mentioned in paragraph 1 may request final disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it is intended to recommend the imposition of definitive measures, or the termination of an investigation or proceedings without the imposition of measures, particular attention being paid to the disclosure of any facts or considerations which are different from those used for any provisional measures. 3.      Requests for final disclosure, as defined in paragraph 2, shall be addressed to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in writing and be received, in cases where a provisional duty has been applied, no later than one month after publication of the imposition of that duty. Where a provisional duty has not been applied, parties shall be provided with an opportunity to request final disclosure within time-limits set by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 4.      Final disclosure shall be given in writing. It shall be made, due regard being had to the protection of confidential information, as soon as possible and, normally, no later than one month prior to a definitive decision or the submission by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of any proposal for final action pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 9. Where the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is not in a position to disclose certain facts or considerations at that time, these shall be disclosed as soon as possible thereafter. Disclosure shall not prejudice any subsequent decision which may be taken by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] or the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] but where such decision is based on any different facts and considerations, these shall be disclosed as soon as possible. 5.      Representations made after final disclosure is given shall be taken into consideration only if received within a period to be set by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in each case, which shall be at least 10 days, due consideration being given to the urgency of the matter.’ The contested regulation 6 The contested regulation was adopted on the basis of the basic regulation. Recital 29 of the contested regulation states as follows: ‘After the publication of provisional measures and again after final disclosure, a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] importer and wholesaler and a Chinese cooperating exporting producer claimed that specially coated stoneware products of a kind for sublimation printing and for which the coating of sublimation is removable through mechanical scratching should be excluded from the product scope on the basis that they are semi-finished products for which the photofinishing is carried out in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] via specific channels, the different consumer perception, the fact that the sublimation coating exceeds the value of the uncoated ceramic items and the inexistency of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] producers of this kind of product. The investigation revealed that the product is visibly identical to other non-sublimated tableware and, therefore, it is difficult to distinguish between them, if at all. The investigation further showed that these products normally have the same end-use as other types of ceramic tableware. It was also found that several [OSCURATO:PERSONA] producers manufacture these products and that [OSCURATO:PERSONA]-made and imported products are in direct competition. In view of the above, the claim to exclude specially coated stoneware wares of a kind for sublimation printing is rejected.’ 7 Recital 169 of the contested regulation is worded as follows: ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] cartel investigation, which investigates alleged price fixing from July 2005 to February 2008, is still on-going. As the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] producers have been granted confidentiality and in view of the fact that the final results of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on-going investigation have not publicly been released yet, it is not possible to comment on the details of the analysis carried out. However, it can be confirmed that none of the sampled [OSCURATO:PERSONA] producers is subject to this on-going investigation. The investigation also concluded that the micro-economic indicators have not been affected by the investigated practices and the macro-economic indicators only to a very limited extent, if any.’ 8 The contested regulation provides in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(1) thereof as follows: ‘A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware, excluding ceramic knives, ceramic condiment or spice mills and their ceramic grinding parts, ceramic peelers, ceramic knife sharpeners and cordierite ceramic pizza-stones of a kind used for baking pizza or bread, currently falling within CN codes ex 6911 10 00, ex 6912 00 10, ex 6912 00 30, ex 6912 00 50 and ex 6912 00 90 (TARIC codes 6911 10 00 90, 6912 00 10 11, 6912 00 10 91, 6912 00 30 10, 6912 00 50 10 and 6912 00 90 10) and originating in [China].’ Background to the dispute 9 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA is a Chinese company which produces and exports plain polyester-coated ceramic mugs to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (‘the mugs at issue’). 10 On 16 February 2012, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] initiated an anti-dumping proceeding to investigate the importation into the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China. The investigation covered the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011 and the examination of the periods relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2008 to the end of the investigation period. 11 On 14 November 2012, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EU) No 1072/2012 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of China (OJ 2012 L 318, p. 28). 12 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA submitted observations to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] at a hearing on 23 January 2013. It requested in particular that the mugs at issue be excluded from the products concerned by the investigation. 13 On 4 February 2013, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA submitted additional observations to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 14 On 1 March 2013, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA received from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] the final disclosure document provided for in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 20 of the basic regulation. That document states that the request for the exclusion of mugs at issue from the scope of the investigation had been rejected. 15 On 22 March 2013, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA submitted additional observations to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 16 On 15 May 2013, upon the proposal of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] published the contested regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on the imports concerned with effect from 16 May 2013. 17 As is apparent from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(1) of the contested regulation, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] rejected the request for the mugs at issue to be excluded from the definition of the products concerned by the investigation. 18 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(2) of the contested regulation, a definitive anti-dumping duty of 17.9% was imposed on [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA. The proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the judgment under appeal 19 By application lodged at the Registry of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 2 August 2013, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA brought an action for annulment of the contested regulation. In support of its action, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA raised four pleas in law. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] rejected all those pleas in the judgment under appeal. 20 The first plea concerned the definition of the goods covered by the investigation. The appellant contested the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s inclusion of the mugs at issue in the definition of those goods. 21 The appellant argued that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had made manifest errors of assessment in identifying, in recital 29 of the contested regulation, three factors justifying the inclusion of the mugs at issue in the definition of the goods concerned by the investigation. The first factor relied on by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for including those mugs in that definition was that they were visually identical to other non-sublimated tableware and that it was difficult to distinguish between them, if not impossible. The second factor put forward by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was that those mugs had the same end-use as other types of ceramic tableware. Lastly, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] stated, by way of third factor, that several EU producers manufactured that type of product and that EU-made and imported products were in direct competition. 22 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] examined those three factors in turn. 23 As regards the first factor, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concluded, at the end of its examination in paragraph 39 of the judgment under appeal, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] erred in finding that the mugs at issue were visually identical to other non-sublimated tableware. According to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], that factor was irrelevant to the present case as the different categories of goods included in the definition of the goods concerned by the investigation are not in any way visually similar. The fact that goods belonging to the same more restricted category, namely ceramic mugs, are visually similar is, therefore, according to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], irrelevant for the purpose of determining whether or not they fall within the more general category of goods concerned by the investigation. 24 As regards the second factor, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considered, at paragraph 38 of the judgment under appeal, that the appellant had failed to show that the end-use of the mugs at issue differed substantially from that of other ceramic tableware and cookware. 25 With regard to the third factor, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] stated, in paragraph 37 of the judgment under appeal, that the fact that there are producers of the mugs at issue within the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was not determinative; what was decisive, on the other hand, was the fact that those mugs were in competition with other goods manufactured in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which had been demonstrated to be the case here. 26 The second plea concerned in particular the contention that the fair comparison required pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2(10) of the basic regulation between the normal value and the export price had not been made. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] stated, in paragraph 62 of the judgment under appeal, that the appellant had not put forward any argument capable of calling the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s analysis into question. 27 The third plea alleged that the EU institutions had made a manifest error in their assessment, under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(7) of the basic regulation, of the causal connection between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the EU industry. The argument put forward by the appellant was that the Bundeskartellamt (the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] competition authority) had investigated potentially anti-competitive practices in Germany but the EU institutions had failed to take this into account in their assessment. 28 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] stated, in that regard, in paragraph 73 of the judgment under appeal, that the investigation by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] competition authority was still ongoing when the contested regulation was adopted and that it could not therefore be said that it had been established that restrictive practices existed. That court also stated, in paragraph 81 of the judgment under appeal, that the period covered by the investigation carried out by that national authority and that covered by the anti-dumping investigation overlapped by only two months and that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] market in question accounted for no more than 16% of the EU market, not 53% as claimed by the appellant. 29 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] also examined the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s assessment of the microeconomic factors and stated, in paragraph 78 of the judgment under appeal, that the appellant had failed to produce any evidence capable of calling that institution’s conclusion into question, the appellant having failed to demonstrate that the alleged anti-competitive practices investigated by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] competition authority had affected the microeconomic indicators analysed. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] also corrected, in paragraph 76 of the judgment under appeal, what it considered to be the appellant’s erroneous interpretation of recital 169 of the contested regulation, and was thus able to reject the appellant’s request for a measure of inquiry requiring the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to submit the relevant evidence concerning the composition of the sample taken into consideration by the institutions. 30 Lastly, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] found, in paragraph 80 of the judgment under appeal, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had not erred in finding that the macroeconomic indicators could be affected only to a very limited extent by the practices in question. 31 As regards the fourth plea, alleging infringement of the provision of the basic regulation relating to the determination of injury, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] rejected that plea, noting, in paragraphs 88 and 89 of the judgment under appeal, that that plea alleged an error on the part of the institutions, a claim that was rejected in connection with the third plea. Forms of order sought by the parties 32 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: –        set aside the judgment under appeal; –        annul the contested regulation; and –        order the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs. 33 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contends that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: –        dismiss the appeal in its entirety as inadmissible and unfounded; and –        order the appellant to pay the costs. 34 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:SOCIETA], Ceramie-[OSCURATO:PERSONA] [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Verband der [OSCURATO:PERSONA] eVcontend that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: –        dismiss the appeal as inadmissible and, in any event, as unfounded; and –        order the appellant to pay the costs. The appeal The first ground of appeal, alleging that an unreasonable burden of proof was imposed on the appellant Arguments of the parties 35 By its first ground of appeal, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA takes issue with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for imposing on it an unreasonable burden of proof, since it was established in the judgment under appeal that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] misinterpreted two of the three factors deemed relevant for the inclusion of the mugs at issue in the definition of the goods concerned by the investigation. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] nonetheless took the view that it was for the appellant to show that an error had been made in respect of all the factors identified. In particular, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] found that the first factor relied on by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], relating to the claim that those mugs were visually identical to other ceramic tableware and kitchenware, was incorrect. It also found that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had erred insofar as concerns the third factor, relating to the presence of producers of the mugs at issue within the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. The fact that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] established that two of the three factors identified by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to justify the inclusion of the mugs at issue in the definition of the goods concerned by the investigation are vitiated by errors of assessment should have been sufficient for it to be concluded that the appellant had discharged the burden of proof. 36 In support of its position, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA relies on paragraph 132 of the judgment of 4 March 2010 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (HK) and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (T‑401/06, EU:T:2010:67), from which it follows that the appellant is not required to prove an error of assessment in relation to each of the factors deemed relevant by the institutions. 37 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], Ceramie-[OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Verband der [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contend that the first ground of appeal should be dismissed on the basis that it is inadmissible and unfounded. They state, first, that it is apparent from paragraph 51 of the judgment under appeal that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concluded that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had made an error in respect of only one of the three factors in question and that the appellant’s contention, as set out in paragraph 35 above, is therefore a distortion of the judgment under appeal. Second, the burden of proof imposed on the appellant was not unreasonable and follows directly from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] case-law, in particular from the judgment of 4 March 2010 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (HK) and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (T‑401/06, EU:T:2010:67). Findings of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 38 As a preliminary point, it should be noted, with regard to the first factor referred to by the appellant, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did in fact conclude, in paragraph 39 of the judgment under appeal, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had erred in finding, to justify the inclusion of the mugs at issue in the definition of the goods concerned by the investigation, that they were visually identical to other types of ceramic tableware and kitchenware. 39 As regards the second factor identified by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it should be noted that the appellant has not called into question the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] finding that there is no evidence in the file to justify the conclusion that the end use of the mugs at issue differs substantially from that of other ceramic tableware and kitchenware. 40 As regards the third factor, contrary to what the appellant claims, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not find that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had made an error. 41 Indeed, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] stated, in paragraph 37 of the judgment under appeal, that that factor in fact consists of two sub-factors, it being necessary, first, to establish whether in the present case there are producers of the mugs at issue in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and, second, to establish whether those mugs are in competition with other goods manufactured in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 42 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considered in that regard that, in the present case, the fact that there may not be producers of the mugs at issue in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was not determinative, and that the decisive question was whether such mugs may be, on account of their characteristics and, therefore, the perception which consumers have of them, in competition with other goods of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] production. It was indeed specifically established in the present case that those mugs were in competition with other goods manufactured in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 43 It follows from the above considerations that, in support of its decision to reject the appellant’s argument that the mugs at issue should have been excluded from the definition of the goods in question, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] relied on the second and third factors. 44 In so doing, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not err in law and, in particular, it did not impose an unreasonable burden of proof on the appellant 45 It was for the appellant to prove that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had erred in its assessment of the factors which it considered relevant when the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] found that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had erred in its interpretation with regard to just one of those factors. 46 It follows that, while the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] found that an error had been made in relation to the first factor, the appellant was required to show that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had erred insofar as concerns the other factors under consideration. 47 The first ground of appeal must therefore also be rejected as unfounded. The second ground of appeal, alleging distortion of the facts and evidence Arguments of the parties 48 By its second ground of appeal, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] distorted the facts and evidence by asserting, in paragraph 37 of the judgment under appeal, that mugs of the kind at issue were produced in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. According to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA, there is nothing in the file submitted to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to suggest that such goods are actually produced. 49 According to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], whose view is shared by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], Ceramie-[OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Verband der [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the second ground of appeal is inadmissible. By that ground, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA is calling into question the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] assessment of the facts and evidence and is asking the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to re-examine them. The second ground of appeal is also unfounded. Findings of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 50 It is clear from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 256 TFEU and the first paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 58 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to find the facts, except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it, and, second, to assess those facts. 51 It follows that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice has no jurisdiction to establish the facts or, in principle, to examine the evidence which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] accepted in support of those facts. Provided that that evidence has been properly obtained and the general principles of law and the rules of procedure in relation to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence have been observed, it is for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] alone to assess the value to be attached to the evidence produced before it. Save where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted, that appraisal does not therefore constitute a point of law which is subject as such to review by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice (judgment of 11 September 2014 in Gem-[OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Jinn-[OSCURATO:PERSONA]Parts (Zhejiang) v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑602/12 P, not published, EU:C:2014:2203, paragraph 37). 52 Such distortion must, nonetheless, be obvious from the documents on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] file, without there being any need to carry out a new assessment of the facts and the evidence (judgment of 11 September 2014 in Gem-[OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Jinn-[OSCURATO:PERSONA]Parts (Zhejiang) v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑602/12 P, not published, EU:C:2014:2203, paragraph 38). 53 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] finds that it is not obvious from the arguments put forward in connection with the second ground of appeal that the facts and evidence were distorted, as claimed by the appellant. 54 It follows that the second ground of appeal must be rejected as unfounded. The third and sixth grounds of appeal, alleging misinterpretation and infringement of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(2) and (7) of the basic regulation Arguments of the parties 55 By its third ground of appeal, the appellant contends that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] erred in its interpretation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(2) and (7) of the basic regulation, in that it considered that the institutions were relieved of any obligation to analyse the impact of anti-competitive practices because, even though the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] competition authority was conducting an investigation, it was common ground that that authority had not taken a final decision at the time the contested regulation was adopted. 56 Moreover, by its sixth ground of appeal, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA alleges infringement of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(2) and (7) of the basic regulation, in so far as the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] found, on the basis of an assumption rather than analysis, that the institutions had fulfilled their obligations under those provisions. 57 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], Ceramie-[OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Verband der [OSCURATO:PERSONA] consider that the third and sixth grounds of appeal are inadmissible and, in any event, unfounded. 58 They consider that, contrary to what is claimed by the appellant, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not relieve the institutions of their obligation to analyse the impact of anti-competitive practices in connection with an anti-dumping investigation. On the contrary, in paragraphs 76 to 78, 80 and 81 of the judgment under appeal, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] confirmed that the institutions had examined the impact of the suspected practices. 59 In that regard, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was entitled to take the view that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in the absence of any formal decision by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] competition authority, could not draw any concrete conclusions from the investigation being carried out by that authority. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was also correct to confirm the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s assessments because, first, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] conclusions are based on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s analysis, which concluded that the practices investigated had no impact, and, second, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA did not produce any evidence to challenge the institutions’ finding in that regard. 60 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], Ceramie-[OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Verband der [OSCURATO:PERSONA] also claim that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] examined in detail the analysis carried out by the institutions with regard to macroeconomic factors. Findings of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 61 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(2) of the basic regulation provides that a determination of injury is to be based on positive evidence and involves an objective examination of both (i) the volume of the dumped imports and the effect of the dumped imports on prices in the EU market for like products, and (ii) the consequent impact of those imports on the EU industry. 62 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(7) of the basic regulation provides that known factors other than the dumped imports which could at the same time be injuring the EU industry are also to be examined to ensure that injury caused by these other factors is not attributed to the dumped imports. Factors which may be considered in this respect include restrictive trade practices of, and competition between, third country and EU producers. 63 Furthermore, it is settled case-law that the determination of injury caused to the EU industry requires an appraisal of complex economic situations and judicial review of such an appraisal must therefore be limited to verifying whether relevant procedural rules have been complied with, whether the facts relied on have been accurately stated, and whether there has been a manifest error in the appraisal of those facts or a misuse of powers. That is particularly the case as regards the determination of the factors injuring the EU industry in an anti-dumping investigation (judgment of 10 September 2015 in Bricmate , C‑569/13, EU:C:2015:572, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited). 64 In the present case, it is common ground, as the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] observed in point 73 of the judgment under appeal, that at the time the contested regulation was adopted, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] competition authority’s investigation was still ongoing. The institutions were not therefore entitled, when examining whether there was injury, to regard as known facts the future results of that investigation, which was still pending. 65 That being the case, it is apparent from paragraphs 77 to 83 of the judgment under appeal that, first, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not relieve the institutions of their obligation to analyse anti-competitive practices. Indeed, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] endorsed the institutions’ analysis as regards microeconomic and macroeconomic factors and did not, therefore, have recourse to assumptions. 66 Second, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] carried out a judicial review of the institutions’ assessments, in accordance with the requirements set out in paragraph 63 above. 67 Accordingly, the third and sixth grounds of appeal must be rejected as unfounded. The fourth ground of appeal, alleging distortion of the evidence and an error of law Arguments of the parties 68 By its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant claims, first, distortion of the evidence insofar as concerns the microeconomic factors referred to in recital 169 of the contested regulation, on the basis that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considered that it was able to review whether the institutions had complied with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(2) and (7) of the basic regulation without knowing the identity of the EU producers forming part of the sample taken into account in the anti-dumping investigation. 69 The appellant also contends that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] erred in law in refusing its request for measures of inquiry. 70 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], Ceramie-[OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Verband der [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contend that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should reject the fourth ground of appeal as unfounded, as the appellant has based its arguments on a misinterpretation of recital 169 of the contested regulation. That recital clearly states that it may be confirmed that none of the EU producers forming part of the sample were investigated by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] competition authority. It was possible to conclude, on the basis of the investigation, that the microeconomic indicators had not been affected by the practices under examination and that the macroeconomic indicators had been affected only to a limited extent. 71 With regard to the claim that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] erred in law, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], Ceramie-[OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Verband der [OSCURATO:PERSONA] agree in saying that that amounts to a criticism of a procedural decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and must therefore be rejected as inadmissible. Findings of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 72 In the first place, the appellant alleges distortion of the facts and evidence insofar as the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] carried out its review without knowing the identity of the EU producers that formed part of the sample taken into account in the anti-dumping investigation and, therefore, without being able to verify whether some of those producers were also being investigated by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] competition authority. 73 In that regard, the appellant is incorrect in its view that it was necessary for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to be aware of the identity of the EU producers forming part of the sample taken into account in the anti-dumping investigation in order to be in a position to ascertain whether some of those producers were also being investigated by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] competition authority. The true position is that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] review was carried out on the basis of other aspects of the anti-dumping investigation, namely the microeconomic indicators, such as stocks, sale prices, profitability, capital flow, wages and the cost of production. 74 As a result of that incorrect premiss on the part of the appellant, its argument alleging that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] distorted facts and evidence relates to an aspect of the case which was not in fact taken into account by that court for the purpose of its review. The claim alleging distortion is therefore unfounded. 75 In the second place, for the same reason relating to that incorrect premiss, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] cannot be criticised for having refused the appellant’s request for a measure of inquiry. 76 It follows that the fourth ground of appeal must be rejected as unfounded. The fifth ground of appeal, alleging that an unreasonable burden of proof was imposed on the appellant Arguments of the parties 77 By its fifth ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] imposed on it an unreasonable burden of proof, requiring it to demonstrate the error made by the institutions, even though it did not have available to it the relevant information concerning the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] competition authority’s ongoing investigation. 78 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], Ceramie-[OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Verband der [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contend that the fifth ground of appeal is unfounded as the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] applied the general principles derived from its case-law concerning the burden of proof and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA failed to adduce any evidence to challenge the institutions’ submissions on that point. Findings of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 79 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has previously held that it is for the parties pleading the illegality of a regulation such as the regulation at issue to adduce evidence to show the impact of factors capable of having an effect on the injury caused to the EU industry. Such parties must show in particular that those factors could have had such an impact that the claim alleging injury to the EU industry and a causal link between that injury and the dumped imports could not be relied on (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 December 2013 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ‘Kazchrome’ and ENRC Marketing v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑10/12 P, not published, EU:C:2013:865, paragraph 28). 80 In the present case, it is apparent from paragraphs 74 and 75 above that the appellant based its dispute concerning the contested regulation before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on an incorrect premiss. 81 In the absence of the results of the investigation pending before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] competition authority, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] took into account, in adopting the contested regulation, the findings of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s investigation, which concluded that the microeconomic indicators had not been affected by the practices under examination and that the macroeconomic indicators had been affected only to a limited extent. 82 Accordingly, an unreasonable burden of proof was not imposed on the appellant. In order to challenge the contested regulation, it should have adduced evidence that called into question the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s investigation and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s conclusions and it was not necessary for that purpose for it to be apprised of the information pertaining to the ongoing investigation before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] competition authority. 83 It follows that the fifth ground of appeal must be rejected as unfounded. 84 It follows from all the foregoing that the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety as unfounded. Costs 85 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 138(1) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Procedure, which apply to the procedure on appeal by virtue of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 184(1) of those rules, the unsuccessful party must be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA has been unsuccessful and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], Ceramie-[OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Verband der [OSCURATO:PERSONA] have applied for costs, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA must be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby: 1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] USA [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. to pay the costs. [Signatures] * Language of the case: English.