Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 September 2026.#AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot and AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK "Azot" v European Commission.#Dumping – Imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia – Definitive anti-dumping duties – Consolidated request for expiry review – Article 11(2), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 – Standard of proof at the initiation of a review – Preliminary stage of the review procedure – Sufficiency of the evidence – Additional information taken into account based on a different dumping calculation method.#Case T-126/21 RENV.

1

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants, AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot and AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’, seek the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2100 of 15 December 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2020 L 425, p. 21; ‘the contested regulation’), in so far as it is applicable to them.

2

The applicants are producers and exporters of fertiliser-grade and industrial-grade ammonium nitrate and are established in Russia.

3

By Council Regulation (EC) No 2022/95 of 16 August 1995 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ 1995 L 198, p. 1), the Council of the European Union imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and falling within Combined Nomenclature codes 31023090 and 31024090 found in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).

4

Following a first expiry review, and a first interim review, a definitive anti-dumping duty was maintained on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia by Council Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 of 15 April 2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ 2002 L 102, p. 1).

5

Following a second expiry review and a second partial interim review, the measures were maintained in force by Council Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 of 8 July 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2008 L 185, p. 1).

6

Following a third expiry review, the European Commission maintained the measures in force by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 999/2014 of 23 September 2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2014 L 280, p. 19).

7

Following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21; ‘the basic regulation’), the Commission adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1722 of 14 November 2018 amending Implementing Regulation No 999/2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic regulation (OJ 2018 L 287, p. 3).

8

Throughout the period during which those review procedures were taking place, the applicants remained subject to an anti-dumping duty applicable to ammonium nitrate on the whole of Russian territory.

9

On 21 June 2019, following the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures (OJ 2019 C 53, p. 3), the Commission received a request from the intervener, Fertilizers Europe, a European association of fertiliser manufacturers, for the initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures in question, on the basis of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation (‘the original request’). In that request, the intervener alleged that there was a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping harmful to the EU industry if the measures were allowed to expire, based on a comparison between export prices and a constructed normal value (‘the method based on the constructed normal value’).

10

On 20 August 2019 the intervener lodged additional information (‘the additional information’), which was underpinned by a normal value based on actual prices on the Russian domestic market (‘the commercial methodology’), and which was incorporated into a consolidated version of the request for an expiry review (‘the consolidated request’).

11

On 23 September 2019, the Commission published the notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ 2019 C 318, p. 6; ‘the notice of initiation’), taking the view that there was sufficient evidence of a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to initiate an expiry review under Article 11(2) of the basic regulation and to carry out an investigation.

12

In particular, section 4 of the notice of initiation, entitled ‘Grounds for the review’, states, in point 1 thereof, the following as regards the intervener’s allegation concerning the likelihood of continuation of dumping:

‘[The intervener] alleged and provided sufficient evidence of the absence of reliable data on domestic prices for Russia … in the ordinary course of trade. Therefore, [the intervener] constructed the normal value on the basis of manufacturing costs in Russia with the exception of the input price for natural gas, which is based on the gas price for delivery at Waidhaus [(Germany)], adjusted for transport costs, to which were added selling, general and administrative costs (SG&A) and normal profit in the United States of America.

Without prejudice to the allegations that domestic prices in [Russia] are unreliable, [the intervener] also provided evidence of a normal value based on actual domestic prices [in that country].

The constructed normal value and the actual domestic prices were compared with the export price (at ex-works level) of the product under review when sold for export to the Union and with the export price (at ex-works level) of the product under review when sold for export to Brazil, the latter representing over 40% of Russian exports of [that product].

Irrespective of the methodology used to determine the normal value or the destination of the export sales, the dumping margins are significant for [Russia].’

13

Following the expiry review investigation, the Commission concluded that there was a likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury if the anti-dumping measures in force concerning ammonium nitrate originating in Russia were allowed to expire. The Commission therefore decided, by adopting the contested regulation, to extend those measures for a period of five years.

14

By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 26 February 2021, the applicants brought an action, registered under number T‑126/21, seeking annulment of the contested regulation.

15

In support of their action, the applicants put forward a single plea in law alleging, in essence, infringement of Article 11(2) and (5) and Article 5(3) of the basic regulation, in that the Commission erred in initiating the expiry review in spite of the lack of sufficient evidence.

16

By judgment of 5 July 2023, Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK ‘Azot’ v Commission (T‑126/21, ‘the initial judgment’, EU:T:2023:376), the General Court upheld the first part of the single plea in law and annulled the contested regulation on that basis, without examining the other two parts. In that regard, the Court found, inter alia, that the condition relating to the sufficiency of the evidence contained in a request for a review made by or on behalf of Union producers, within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation, was satisfied where such evidence was submitted no later than three months before the end of the five-year period at the end of which the anti-dumping measures expired, in accordance with the fourth subparagraph of that provision. Therefore, the Commission had erred in law when it stated, in recital 20 of the contested regulation, that it was irrelevant whether the original request had been supplemented with additional information and that the initiation of the review could be warranted on the basis of the consolidated request (paragraphs 103 and 104 of the initial judgment).

17

By appeals lodged under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 4 and 14 September 2023 respectively, the intervener and the Commission, in the cases that gave rise to the judgment of 30 April 2025, Fertilizers Europe and Commission v Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK Azot (C‑554/23 P et C‑568/23 P, the judgment on appeal, EU:C:2025:291), appealed against the initial judgment.

18

By the judgment on appeal, the Court of Justice set aside the initial judgment on the ground that the General Court had erred in law in the interpretation of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation (paragraph 63 of the judgment on appeal).

19

Following a literal, contextual and teleological reading of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation, the Court of Justice held that that provision had to be interpreted as meaning that the Commission is entitled to take into account evidence that was produced, at its request, by Union producers in the three-month period preceding the expiry of anti-dumping measures, in order to decide whether it is appropriate to carry out a review of those anti-dumping measures (paragraphs 51 to 60 of the judgment on appeal).

20

The Court of Justice thus held that the General Court had erred in law in holding, in paragraph 104 of the initial judgment, that the Commission had itself erred in law when it stated, in recital 20 of the contested regulation, that it was irrelevant whether the original request had been supplemented with additional information and that the initiation of the review could be warranted on the basis of the consolidated request (paragraph 62 of the judgment on appeal).

21

Following the judgment on appeal, the parties submitted their written observations as to the remainder of the proceedings (‘the observations upon referral’) in accordance with Article 193(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

22

The applicants claim that the Court should:

23

The Commission, supported by the intervener, contends that the Court should:

24

It should be borne in mind that, under Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, applicable to the General Court under the first paragraph of Article 53 of that statute, if the appeal is well founded and the case is referred back to the General Court for judgment, the latter is bound by the decision of the Court of Justice on points of law.

25

Thus, once the Court of Justice has set aside a judgment or order and referred the case back to the General Court, the latter is to be seised, pursuant to Article 191 of its Rules of Procedure, of the case by the judgment of the Court of Justice and must rule on all the pleas in law in support of annulment raised by the applicant, apart from those elements of the operative part not set aside by the Court of Justice and the considerations on which those elements are essentially founded, as those elements have acquired the force of res judicata (see judgment of 13 September 2023, Venezuela v Council, T‑65/18 RENV, EU:T:2023:529, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited).

26

In the present case, by point 1 of the operative part of the judgment on appeal, the Court of Justice set aside the initial judgment in its entirety and, by point 2 of that operative part, it referred the case back to the General Court. The General Court must accordingly rule on the entirety of the single plea in law put forward by the applicants in support of their form of order seeking annulment of the contested regulation.

27

The single plea in law, as set out in paragraph 15 above, was divided into three parts, alleging: (i) that the sufficiency of the evidence adduced in a request for review should be determined by reference to the evidence available in the original request lodged within the legal time limit laid down in the last subparagraph of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation, namely no later than three months before the expiry of the measures; (ii) that the original request does not contain sufficient evidence of a likelihood of continuation of dumping or evidence enabling the intervener to justify recourse to the dumping margin calculation method based on a constructed normal value; and (iii) that, in any event, the consolidated request, which also provided dumping margin calculations based on actual domestic prices, does not contain sufficient evidence of a likelihood of continuation of dumping.

28

In the judgment on appeal, the Court of Justice referred the present case back to the General Court for judgment, in essence, on the third part of the single plea in law, alleging that the Commission was incorrect in finding, in the contested regulation, that the consolidated request did contain sufficient evidence of a likelihood of continuation of dumping if the anti-dumping measures in question were allowed to expire. It is apparent, in essence, from the judgment on appeal that the Commission did not err in law in examining the question whether the initiation of the review was justified on the basis of the consolidated request. It follows therefrom that the first part of the single plea in law, alleging that the question whether the evidence put forward in a request for review is sufficient should be assessed by reference to the original request and not the consolidated request, must be dismissed as unfounded. Moreover, the second part of the single plea in law, alleging that the original request does not contain sufficient evidence to warrant initiation of the review, is ineffective.

29

Further to the applicants’ observations upon referral, the General Court finds that the third part of the single plea in law is, in essence, divided into three complaints. The first complaint alleges that the Commission ought not to have taken the additional information into account in its examination of the likelihood of continuation of dumping due to the nature of that information and also the fact that that information was not provided at the Commission’s request. The second complaint alleges that the dumping calculations, relating to the method based on the constructed normal value provided previously in the original request, do not constitute sufficient evidence of a likelihood of continuation of dumping. The third complaint alleges that the dumping calculations based on the commercial methodology, provided subsequently as additional information, do not constitute sufficient evidence of such a likelihood.

30

Before proceeding with an analysis of whether the third part of the single plea in law is well founded, the Court considers it appropriate to examine the criteria applicable to the initiation of an expiry review under the second subparagraph of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation.

31

The applicants submit, inter alia as part of their line of argument under the third part of the single plea in law, that, under Article 11(5) of the basic regulation, Article 5(3) of that regulation is applicable to expiry reviews, so that the Commission must examine the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence contained in the complaint to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant the initiation of a review.

32

The Commission contends that the question whether or not the criterion laid down in Article 5(3) of the basic regulation applies to reviews under Article 11(2) of that regulation is irrelevant, since the applicable legal criterion for determining whether to initiate a review, namely whether the request for review contains sufficient evidence of a likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury in the absence of anti-dumping measures, is provided for in the latter provision.

33

In that regard, it should be borne in mind, first of all, that it is settled case-law that a review procedure differs, in principle, from the original investigation procedure, which is governed by other provisions of the basic regulation. The objective difference between those two types of procedure lies in the fact that imports subject to a review procedure are those on which definitive anti-dumping duties have already been imposed and in respect of which sufficient evidence has generally been adduced to establish that the expiry of those measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. On the other hand, where imports are subject to an initial investigation, the purpose of that investigation is precisely to determine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping (see judgment of 11 September 2018, Foshan Lihua Ceramic v Commission, T‑654/16, EU:T:2018:525, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited), even if the initiation of such an investigation presupposes that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the initiation of such a procedure (judgment of 27 January 2005, Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) v Council, C‑422/02 P, EU:C:2005:56, paragraph 50).

34

More specifically, as regards the review procedure, under the first subparagraph of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation, a definitive anti-dumping measure expires five years from its imposition or five years from the date of the conclusion of the most recent review which has covered both dumping and injury, ‘unless it is determined in a review that the expiry would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury’.

35

An expiry review is to be initiated on the initiative of the Commission, or upon a request made by or on behalf of Union producers. The second subparagraph of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation provides:

‘An expiry review shall be initiated where the request contains sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would likely result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Such likelihood may, for example, be indicated by evidence of continued dumping and injury or evidence that the removal of injury is partly or solely due to the existence of measures or evidence that the circumstances of the exporters, or market conditions, are such that they would indicate the likelihood of further injurious dumping, or by evidence of continued distortions on raw materials.’

36

It follows that, in the case of a request made by or on behalf of Union producers, under the first and second subparagraphs of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation, although the relevant criterion in the review procedure is the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of the dumping and injury, the obligations of the Commission and its burden of proof differ depending on the stage of the review procedure referred to. Article 11(2) of that regulation introduced a distinction between, on the one hand, the so-called ‘preliminary’ stage, provided for in the second subparagraph, following expiry of the legal time limit and preceding the initiation of the review, during which the Union producers have the burden of proof and, on the other hand, the investigation stage provided for in the first subparagraph, during which, in those cases, it is the Commission which has the burden of proof.

37

During the latter investigation stage, the Commission does not act as an arbitrator whose remit is limited to making an award solely on the basis of the information and the evidence provided by the parties to the investigation, given that Article 6(3) and (4) of the basic regulation, applicable to reviews under Article 11(5) thereof, authorises the Commission to request Member States to provide it with information and to carry out all necessary checks and inspections (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 March 2012, GLS, C‑338/10, EU:C:2012:158, paragraph 32).

38

By contrast, during the so-called ‘preliminary’ stage of a request for review made by Union producers, the second subparagraph of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation does not in any way require the Commission to establish a likelihood of dumping in order to justify the initiation of the review and nor does it require the Commission to carry out checks as referred to in the case-law cited in paragraph 37 above. On the contrary, under that latter provision, the Commission must, in essence, ascertain whether the Union producers provided sufficient evidence in their request for review showing that expiry of the measures would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

39

In that vein, the General Court has held previously that the quantity and quality of the evidence necessary to meet the criterion of the sufficiency of the evidence for the purpose of initiating an investigation is different from that which is necessary for the purpose of a final determination of whether there is dumping. Therefore, evidence which is insufficient in quantity or quality to justify a final determination of dumping may nevertheless be sufficient to justify the initiation of an investigation. Thus, Article 5(3) of the basic regulation does not require the Commission to analyse all the information available, which would be for the investigation under Article 6 of the basic regulation. The General Court thus held that the Commission accordingly could, without making a manifest error of assessment, conclude that the complaint contained sufficient evidence and rely on a body of consistent evidence in order to decide to initiate the anti-dumping investigation (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 June 2023, Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group and Others v Commission, T‑748/21, EU:T:2023:346, paragraphs 31 and 100 and the case-law cited).

40

As a result, the applicable standard of proof during the ‘preliminary’ stage of the review procedure for deciding whether to initiate the review is not as high as that applicable during the investigative stage itself; otherwise, as suggested by the intervener, the latter stage would be rendered nugatory.

41

Therefore, without it being necessary to rule on the applicability of Article 5(3) of the basic regulation to reviews, the Court finds that the standard of proof required to justify the initiation of a review under the second subparagraph of Article 11(2) thereof requires only that the request for review contain sufficient evidence showing that expiry of the measures would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. That standard of proof is thus lower than that required to establish that the expiry of those measures would give rise to such a likelihood following the expiry review investigation within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 11(2) of that regulation.

42

It is in the light of those legal criteria that it is appropriate to ascertain whether the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the consolidated request contained sufficient evidence for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation to justify the initiation of an expiry review.

43

Further to the observations upon referral, the third part of the single plea in law, as identified in paragraph 29 above, has been broken down into three complaints, alleging, in essence: (i) that the Commission could not take account of the additional information to justify the initiation of the review; (ii) and (iii) that the evidence contained in the consolidated request, relating to the method based on the constructed normal value and the commercial methodology respectively, contained insufficient evidence.

44

The applicants submit that the additional information altered the substance of the evidence contained in the original request, with the result that the Commission could not take it into account, as stated in paragraph 125 of the initial judgment. Thus, the inclusion in the consolidated request of calculations based on the commercial methodology does not consist of a mere clarification of the evidence contained in the original request. Rather, it is a set of new arguments and evidence, unrelated to the original request and which substantially altered it. In their observations upon referral, the applicants add that those calculations cannot supplement, corroborate or clarify the calculations relating to the method based on the constructed normal value, already included in the original request, contrary to what is suggested in recital 23 of the contested regulation.

45

The Commission, supported by the intervener, disputes the applicants’ line of argument.

46

In that regard, as is apparent from the judgment on appeal, the Commission was correct in stating, in recital 20 of the contested regulation, that it was not relevant that the original request was supplemented by additional information and that the initiation of the review could be justified on the basis of the consolidated request. The Court of Justice recognised, in essence, that the Commission could, prior to the date of expiry of the measures at issue, take into account all evidence relating to the question whether expiry of those measures would be likely, or unlikely, to lead to the continuation or recurrence of the dumping and injury in question, including additional evidence that had been produced at its request. It should be borne in mind that, once Union producers submit a request for review, the Commission is not limited in its powers to gather all the further information it considers necessary to establish whether there is a need to initiate a review procedure (see, to that effect, Opinion of Advocate General Medina in Joined Cases Fertilizers Europe and Commission v Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK Azot, C‑554/23 P and C‑568/23 P, EU:C:2024:986, point 72). Therefore, the Commission is under no obligation to check whether that additional information supplements or corroborates the evidence contained in the original request in order to determine whether the request for review contains sufficient evidence showing that expiry of the measures would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation.

47

In the present case, it should be borne in mind, as is, in essence, apparent from recital 23 of the contested regulation, that, in order to initiate the review in question, the Commission based itself, following a deficiency process, on the consolidated request, which comprises the original request and additional information and hence contains all of the evidence provided by the intervener, including the dumping margin calculations based on the two methods referred to in subsection 4.1 of the notice of initiation, the wording of which is set out in paragraph 12 above. Thus, the distinction drawn by the applicants between the original request and the consolidated request is completely artificial, as it is, in reality, a single request for review, which served as a basis for the Commission to assess whether the evidence provided by the Union producers was sufficient.

48

It follows that the applicants’ statement to the effect that, without the clarifications in the additional information, the Commission would not have been able to justify the initiation of the review is completely irrelevant.

49

It follows from the foregoing that, in the light of the Commission’s broad discretion in the examination of the likelihood of dumping, as set out in paragraphs 73 and 74 below, a fortiori during the preliminary stage of the review procedure, during which it must decide on whether to initiate the review, the argument alleging that the additional information by its very nature may not be taken into account to justify the initiation of the review must be rejected as unfounded.

50

In their observations upon referral, the applicants put forward an argument alleging, in essence, infringement of the last subparagraph of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation. They submit, in particular, that it is apparent from paragraph 60 of the judgment on appeal that the Court of Justice does not recognise that the intervener was entitled voluntarily to supplement the calculations relating to the method based on the constructed normal value contained in the original request with additional information relating to the calculations based on the commercial methodology set out in the consolidated request.

51

In that regard, the applicants submit that the file does not contain any evidence showing that the Commission requested the intervener to provide the latter calculations, with the result that they should be considered as having been submitted out of time under the last subparagraph of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation. They refer to paragraph 25 of the Commission’s statement in defence, where it is stated that ‘accordingly, the consolidated version consists of the original request, complemented with additional information and clarifications provided by the complaining industry, either made at its own initiative or as a result of the engagement with the Commission in the so-called “deficiency process”’.

52

The Commission, in essence, disputes the applicants’ line of argument.

53

In that regard, without it being necessary to rule on whether that argument is new or admissible, the General Court finds that, in paragraphs 59 to 61 of the judgment on appeal, the Court of Justice held that the Commission’s power to collect or request, if it considers it appropriate, additional evidence less than three months before the expiry of anti-dumping measures is not such as to undermine the attainment of the objective of the second sentence of the fourth subparagraph of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation, since the existence of such a power does not mean that the person requesting a review is recognised as having the right spontaneously to supplement its request after the expiry of the legal time limit or to lodge such a request after the expiry of that period, and that the Commission is entitled to take into account evidence that was produced, at its request, by Union producers in the three-month period preceding the expiry of anti-dumping measures.

54

In the present case, it should be noted that, in the proceedings that gave rise to the initial judgment, the General Court, by way of measure of organisation of procedure dated 25 July 2022, asked the question as to the basis on which the Commission had relied to request additional information from the intervener. The Commission replied that, although there was sufficient evidence showing that ammonium nitrate prices were distorted on the Russian market during the pre-initiation period in 2018, it had requested the intervener, on the basis of Article 5(3) of the basic regulation, to provide additional information relating to actual prices of ammonium nitrate in Russia. The Court finds that the applicants did not dispute the Commission’s response or flag up any error of fact in that regard, which they could have done. It follows that the applicants’ line of argument is not such as to call that finding into question.

55

Similarly, the Court notes that both the initial judgment and the judgment on appeal assume, in the description of the background to the dispute, as fact that the Commission requested that additional information from the intervener.

56

Moreover, as correctly stated by the Commission, it is apparent from recitals 20 and 23 of the contested regulation that it initiated the review on the basis of the original request and the additional information provided subsequently and, therefore, on the basis of the consolidated request. In that regard, it stated in recital 23 that the original request ‘contained sufficient evidence that, subject to the clarifications provided by [the intervener] following the deficiency process to supplement its original request, warranted the initiation of the expiry review’. The wording ‘subject to’ suggests that the Commission considered that it needed clarifications from the intervener, which the intervener was requested to provide subsequently in the consolidated request, which it did in the present case, whilst the existence of a ‘deficiency procedure’ suggests that that deficiency arises from a request by the Commission.

57

That assessment is supported by the wording of recital 23 of the contested regulation which, in the English-language version, uses the wording ‘subject to the clarifications provided by the applicants following the deficiency process to supplement its initial request’ and, in the German-language version, the wording ‘nach Anforderung noch fehlender Informationen’.

58

It should also be noted that, according to recital 18 of the contested regulation, the Russian Fertilisers Producers Association had claimed that the intervener had provided additional information only in response to a deficiency letter issued to it by the Commission.

59

In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, first, an administrative act is presumed to be lawful and, secondly, the burden of proof lies, in principle, with the person claiming it to be unlawful, so that it is for the applicants to provide at the very least sufficiently precise, objective and consistent information to corroborate the truth or likelihood of the facts in support of their claim (see judgment of 12 May 2021, Alba Aguilera and Others v EEAS, T‑119/17 RENV, EU:T:2021:254, paragraph 105 and the case-law cited). The applicants’ line of argument is not such as to rebut the factual assessment set out in the contested regulation to the effect, in essence, that the Commission itself initiated a deficiency process in respect of the intervener, upon receipt of the original request, because it needed additional information, inter alia information relating to the calculations based on the commercial methodology, in order to initiate the review.

60

Moreover, the approach taken by the Court of Justice in paragraph 61 of the judgment on appeal, under which the Commission is entitled to take into account evidence that was produced at its request, must be interpreted in the light of the context of that judgment. First of all, as is apparent from paragraph 59 of the judgment on appeal, the purpose of the second sentence of the fourth subparagraph of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation is, inter alia, to enable the Commission to have an appropriate period of time to assess the evidence contained in that request and to ensure that it is sufficient. Hence it was in keeping with that purpose that the Court of Justice, in paragraph 60 of the judgment on appeal, refused to recognise a right for Union producers spontaneously to supplement their request following expiry of the legal time period. It should also be borne in mind that, in view of the Commission’s broad discretion, it is under an obligation to examine carefully and impartially all relevant aspects of the case before it. That broad discretion is illustrated in several respects in paragraph 60 of the judgment on appeal, in that the Court recognises that the Commission is entitled to gather or request additional information, which does not mean, in view of the existence of that possibility, that there is a formal obligation for the Commission to request that information from Union producers. Moreover, the use of the wording ‘if it considers it appropriate’ further illustrates the Commission’s discretion in deciding the appropriateness of initiating a review with the evidence in its possession.

61

It follows that the judgment on appeal must be interpreted as meaning that, during the three months before the date of expiry of the anti-dumping measures, the Commission is entitled to take account of evidence produced at its request, and it is also entitled to collect such evidence if it considers it appropriate, even where it did not expressly request it and without it being obliged to take that evidence into account.

62

In the present case, the body of evidence referred to in paragraphs 54 to 58 above shows that the Commission was in the first scenario alluded to in paragraph 61 above and, at any rate, in the second scenario alluded to therein. In view of the fact that the additional information was obtained following an exchange between the Commission and the intervener, it is clear that that information was not lodged spontaneously by the intervener or at its initiative and that, apparently, the Commission deemed it appropriate to collect that information and take it into account. Therefore, the General Court does not find that there has been any breach in that regard of the principles highlighted in the judgment on appeal.

63

A fortiori, it should be noted that, in the present case, the Commission was entitled to collect additional information if it considered it appropriate to do so since, according to the case-law, it is for the General Court to ascertain whether the EU institutions have omitted to take essential aspects into account in order to establish whether the information in the file was examined with all the required diligence so that it can be held that the normal value of the good concerned was determined in an appropriate and reasonable manner (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 1 June 2022, Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO – Pokój (KRÓWKA MLECZNA Milk FUDGE), T‑363/20, not published, EU:T:2022:321, paragraph 120 and the case-law cited).

64

In the present case, subsection 4.1 of the notice of initiation states that, ‘without prejudice to the allegations that domestic prices in the country concerned are unreliable, the applicant also provided evidence of a normal value based on actual domestic prices in the country concerned.’ It is apparent from both the wording and the scheme of the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the basic regulation that, in the determination of the normal value, it is the price actually paid or payable in the ordinary course of trade which must, as a matter of priority, be taken into consideration in principle to establish the normal value (judgment of 14 July 2021, Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant v Commission, T‑716/19, EU:T:2021:457, paragraph 57) which, in the present case, corresponds to the evidence based on the commercial methodology, contained in the additional information. Thus, as regards the appropriateness of the Commission collecting that information, it acted in accordance with that provision of the basic regulation in order to determine whether the consolidated request contained sufficient evidence within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 11(2) thereof to justify initiation of the review.

65

It follows from all of the foregoing that the argument to the effect that the additional information relating to the calculations based on the commercial methodology was not provided ‘at the request’ of the Commission must be rejected as unfounded.

66

As is apparent from subsection 4.1 of the notice of initiation referred to in paragraph 12 above, the Commission considered the following information to be sufficient evidence of a likelihood of continuation of dumping:

67

The Commission concluded at the end of subsection 4.1 of that notice of initiation that, irrespective of the methodology used to determine the normal value or the destination of the export sales, the dumping margins were significant for Russia.

68

In that regard, it is apparent, in essence, from the judgment on appeal that the Commission is not bound by the evidence contained in the original request, as that could require it to refuse a request for review when it has more recent evidence, whereas it is always free to decide to conduct a review of its own motion.

69

It is clear that, irrespective of the fact that the Commission based itself on the two methods referred to in subsection 4.1 of the notice of initiation to justify the initiation of the review, it found that, irrespective of the method used to determine the normal value or the destination of export sales, the dumping margins were significant. It follows that, inasmuch as the Commission had sufficient evidence on the basis of either or both of the methods referred to above, under the second subparagraph of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation, it could initiate the review.

70

Moreover, as observed in paragraph 64 above, it is apparent from both the wording and the scheme of the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the basic regulation that, in the determination of the normal value, it is the price actually paid or payable in the ordinary course of trade which must, as a matter of priority, be taken into consideration in principle to establish the normal value (judgment of 14 July 2021, Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant v Commission, T‑716/19, EU:T:2021:457, paragraph 57) which, in the present case, corresponds to the evidence based on the commercial methodology, contained in the additional information.

71

Therefore, in the present case, as stated, in essence, in paragraphs 59 to 61 of the judgment on the appeal, there was nothing in principle preventing the Commission from examining whether the consolidated request contained sufficient evidence on the basis of the additional information relating to the calculations based on the commercial methodology.

72

In view of those considerations, it is appropriate to examine first of all the applicants’ third complaint, alleging that the dumping calculations based on the commercial methodology do not constitute sufficient evidence of a likelihood of dumping.

73

In that regard, for the purposes of that examination, it should first of all be borne in mind that, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, in the sphere of the common commercial policy and, most particularly, in the realm of measures to protect trade, the EU institutions enjoy broad discretion by reason of the complexity of the economic and political situations which they have to examine (see judgment of 22 June 2023, Vitol, C‑268/22, EU:C:2023:508, paragraph 62 and the case-law cited).

74

In that context, the examination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury requires an appraisal of complex economic situations and the judicial review of such an appraisal must therefore be limited to verifying whether relevant procedural rules have been complied with, whether the facts on which the contested choice is based have been accurately stated, and whether there has been a manifest error in the appraisal of those facts or a misuse of powers (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 September 2007, Ikea Wholesale, C‑351/04, EU:C:2007:547, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited).

75

Moreover, as regards errors vitiating the dumping margin calculations taking account of the normal value based on actual domestic prices and export prices, it must be borne in mind that, under the principle of sound administration, where the EU institutions have a broad power of appraisal, respect for the rights guaranteed by the EU legal order in administrative procedures is of even more fundamental importance. Those guarantees include, in particular, the duty of the competent institution to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case (judgments of 13 July 2006, Shandong Reipu Biochemicals v Council, T‑413/03, EU:T:2006:211, paragraph 63, and of 25 June 2015, PT Musim Mas v Council, T‑26/12, not published, EU:T:2015:437, paragraph 112).

76

Nevertheless, it should also be borne in mind, as stated in paragraph 41 above, that the principle of sound administration does not require the Commission to establish, immediately once a request for review has been lodged, that the expiry of the measures would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping or injury, which is the standard of proof required for determining the injury at the end of such a review under the first subparagraph of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation, but that that principle only requires the Commission to check whether the request for review contains sufficient evidence showing that expiry of the measures would likely lead thereto.

77

It is in the light of the principles laid down above that the alleged errors made by the Commission in the examination of the evidence based on the commercial methodology must be analysed in turn.

78

The applicants submit that the dumping margin calculations based on the commercial methodology, which compares the Russian domestic prices of EUR 142 per tonne as normal value with export prices to the European Union, Estonia and Brazil, are vitiated by errors that the Commission ought to have identified and corrected. Thus, that evidence, contained in the consolidated request, is not sufficient to demonstrate the likelihood of a continuation of dumping within the meaning of Article 11(2) and (5) and Article 5(3) of the basic regulation. Hence, according to the applicants, the Commission omitted to examine the accuracy and adequacy of that evidence, made manifest errors of assessment and failed in its duty to examine carefully and impartially all relevant aspects.

79

The applicants put forward six arguments in that regard, all of which are disputed by the Commission, supported by the intervener.

80

By their first argument, the applicants submit that the evidence relating to domestic prices in Russia were never communicated to the parties concerned. The domestic prices communicated by Chemcourier are on an FOB (free on board) basis and not on an EXW (ex-works) basis, as stated by the intervener in the consolidated request.

81

Since the intervener recognises that Russian rail logistics costs may be substantial, the normal value is probably exaggerated owing to the fact that it was stated as being on an FOB basis rather than an EXW basis.

82

Given that, first, the Commission was not able to establish that those prices were actually quoted on an EXW basis and that, secondly, accordingly no adjustment was necessary, the Commission failed to ensure that the evidence was adequate and accurate, with the result that it was insufficient.

83

As regards, first of all, the prices applied on the Russian domestic market, the applicants claim that ‘quotations relied on would have been on an FOB, rather than EXW basis, the normal value relied on under the commercial methodology would be significantly exaggerated’. In that regard, the General Court finds, first, that they criticise the use of a domestic price of EUR 142 per tonne, whilst at the same time, in the table in both paragraph 92 of the application and paragraph 69 of the applicants’ observations upon referral, relying on that same amount in the column of ‘correct figures’ that should have been used. Moreover, as correctly stated by the Commission, the applicants do not state how the estimate thus provided in the consolidated request is manifestly incorrect, in view of the domestic price applied in the contested regulation of EUR 145 per tonne, an amount, moreover, not disputed by them.

84

Thus, given that the standard of proof required to justify the initiation of the review during the preliminary stage of the review procedure is lower than what is required to establish harm at the end of such a review, as is apparent from paragraphs 33 to 41 above, the Commission did not make a manifest error of assessment in basing itself on a domestic price estimate of EUR 142 per tonne, as provided in the consolidated request. This holds all the more true given that the difference between that value and that ultimately established at the end of the review is negligible. It should be noted that the figures provided by the intervener and used by the Commission at the stage of initiation of the review are preliminary and indicative, in the sense that they must serve only to substantiate the possibility of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

85

Next, inasmuch as the applicants claim that they did not have access to the method for establishing domestic prices, referred to at page 35 of the consolidated request, with the result that they were not able to determine whether those prices were quoted on an EXW basis or an FOB basis, the Court notes that that information was provided by the Commission in Annex F.1, in response to a measure of inquiry from the Court. It is clear that that annex confirms that the domestic prices, provided for 2018 in the consolidated request, were indeed quoted on an EXW basis and that the Commission based itself on those figures.

86

The first argument must accordingly be rejected as unfounded.

87

As regards the applicants’ second, third and fourth arguments, the Court finds at the outset that, although Article 2(11) of the basic regulation provides explicitly for the obligation to take into consideration ‘prices of all export transactions’, it is apparent from the wording thereof that it is aimed at establishing the dumping margin calculation methods ‘during the investigation period’ and not at the stage of initiation of the review. Consequently, the Commission cannot be required to assess, under the second subparagraph of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation, information or factors going beyond what the intervener is required to provide under that provision.

88

The applicants claim that, in order to determine export prices to the European Union, the intervener ‘sanitised’ the Eurostat figures to exclude prices it considered to be too high and used the price of EUR 160 per tonne, instead of EUR 176 per tonne.

89

According to the applicants, the use of ‘sanitised’ figures cannot be justified on account of ‘low volumes’. In that regard, first, the sanitised Eurostat figures exclude 14% of total imports into the European Union and, more specifically, imports into Finland, without any justification other than their higher price.

90

Finland was, moreover, the third most important import destination for ammonium nitrate in 2018, with a total of 8200 tonnes, and the only destination where imports were made throughout the year at stable prices, which could not therefore be considered to be outliers. Conversely, low import volumes from Greece or Lithuania were not sanitised.

91

Secondly, as recognised by the Commission in recital 55 of the contested regulation, the measures in question were directed at both fertiliser-grade ammonium nitrate and industrial-grade ammonium nitrate, with the latter being sold at higher prices than the former and in much lower quantities. The result of that ‘sanitisation’ is that the intervener artificially reached the conclusion that exports to the European Union were dumped.

92

In that regard, in non-confidential Annex 25, the consolidated request referred, with respect to export prices to the European Union, to both actual Eurostat data and data ‘sanitised’ by the intervener, which considered the Eurostat data to be too high. The Commission cannot be criticised on that point for having used ‘sanitised’ data based on principal export destination. As regards the standard of proof applicable to the Commission, referred to in paragraph 41 above, the Commission could form an idea as to the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury on the basis of those figures, without thereby making a finding as to their accuracy at the stage of initiation of the review.

93

Therefore, the question of how and why the intervener sanitised the figures only for certain exports is irrelevant for the assessment of the lawfulness of the contested regulation. In any event, the applicants have failed to demonstrate that that regulation was vitiated by a manifest error of assessment because the Commission used the sanitised data in question.

94

Moreover, and at any rate, the Commission did not make a manifest error of assessment in basing itself, at the stage of initiation of the review, on the most representative exports, namely those with the highest volume, generally corresponding to bulk fertiliser-grade ammonium nitrate. It is clear that those most representative exports by themselves substantiated sufficiently a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Moreover, that does not mean that industrial-grade ammonium nitrate, which, as correctly observed by the applicants, was covered by the same anti-dumping measures under recital 55 of the contested regulation, was not taken into account subsequently by the Commission during the expiry review investigation.

95

In any event, as correctly observed by the Commission, even during the preliminary stage preceding the initiation of the review, the applicants have not demonstrated that the exports the figures of which were sanitised concerned exports of industrial-grade ammonium nitrate.

96

The second argument must accordingly be rejected as unfounded.

97

The applicants claim that the allegations of dumping based on export prices to Estonia are not relevant, given that the European Union should be treated as a single market and that the calculations which reflect export prices to a single Member State are not representative of the volumes concerned and are therefore illegal under Article 2 of the basic regulation. Subsection 4.1 of the notice of initiation does not even mention calculations based on export prices to Estonia, which proves that the Commission did not consider those calculations to be representative and sufficient to establish the likelihood of dumping.

98

In the present case, first, the applicants do not dispute that approximately 50% of Russian ammonium nitrate exports effected in 2018 were to Estonia.

99

In that regard, it should be noted that, in the report of 22 April 2003 of the WTO Panel, entitled ‘Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on Poultry from Brazil’ (WT/DS241/R, paragraph 7.67), it is stated that, at the time of initiation of a review, it is sufficient for an investigating authority to base its decision to initiate that review on evidence concerning domestic sales in a major market of the exporting country subject to the investigation.

100

Secondly, as is apparent from the considerations set out in paragraph 87 above, the Commission could correctly base itself solely on the calculations relating to export prices to Estonia. In any event, and as correctly observed by the Commission, the Court finds that the figures relating to Estonia are merely part of the evidence, as the intervener did not confine itself to producing information on export prices to that State, but also supplemented those figures with other calculations relating to exports to the European Union and Brazil, which allowed the Commission to assemble a body of evidence substantiating the point that it had sufficient evidence to show that expiry of the measures in question would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping.

101

It should also be noted that the fact that subsection 4.1 of the notice of initiation does not refer specifically to calculations based on export prices to Estonia does not in any way show that those calculations were not representative for the purposes of substantiating the finding that expiry of the measures in question would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping.

102

The fact that subsection 4.1 of the notice of initiation states that actual domestic prices were compared to export prices, including to the European Union, is sufficient, since the European Union includes Estonia.

103

It follows that the third argument must be rejected as unfounded.

104

As regards their fourth argument, the applicants submit, in the first place, that export prices to Brazil are fundamentally flawed, with the result that they do not establish that exports to Brazil were dumped. First of all, non-confidential Annex 10 to the consolidated request refers to the same volume and value for ammonium nitrate exported to Brazil and worldwide, which is inaccurate because Russia also exports ammonium nitrate to other countries.

105

Next, page 42 of the consolidated request refers to an export price of EUR 148 per tonne FOB, whereas non-confidential Annex 10 refers to an average price of EUR 150 per tonne FOB; that difference is not innocuous.

106

Lastly, the export statistics provided with non-confidential Annex 10 are quoted FOB departing from a Russian port. However, the intervener made an EXW adjustment of EUR 25 per tonne by deducting transport costs, which is excessive, whereas it recognised, in the consolidated request, that the average annual value of port costs and domestic rail logistics was EUR 6 per tonne during the investigation period.

107

The applicants add, in the second place, that, according to subsection 4.1 of the notice of initiation, exports to Brazil were used to prove the ‘likelihood of continuation of dumping’ and not as ‘proof of recurrence of dumping’, with the result that the Commission is attempting, incorrectly, to justify its findings after the fact.

108

In that regard, in the first place, the Court finds that, contrary to what the applicants maintain, non-confidential Annex 10 does not contradict the EUR 148 per tonne figure found in the table at page 42 of the consolidated request. That annex establishes export prices to Brazil on a monthly basis, between January 2018 and January 2019, and the table at page 42 of the consolidated request reproduces a weighted average export price.

109

It is also clear that the EUR 150 per tonne figure, which the applicants claim is correct, comes from a new calculation of average price, provided in Annex 7 to the comments of the Russian Fertilisers Producers Association of 30 October 2019, which is based on non-confidential Annex 10. The Commission could not have had knowledge of that new calculation at the time of the notice of initiation, since it was published on 23 September 2019, and the intervener cannot be criticised for not having provided it in the consolidated request, as that would entail that it had in its possession accurate data on the correct volumes of ammonium nitrate exported to Brazil in 2018, which cannot reasonably be expected of the Union producers, at any rate not during the preliminary stage of the expiry review procedure.

110

In any event, and as correctly stated by the Commission, that price difference is minor and, despite the fact that the figures in question are not accurate, they are nevertheless similar, which accordingly does not undermine the sufficiency of that piece of evidence to substantiate the fact that expiry of the measures in question would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping. It follows that the Commission did not make a manifest error of assessment in basing itself on those figures.

111

It is, moreover, readily apparent from the table in non-confidential Annex 10 that the export prices are FOB, since the EXW prices are Russian domestic prices. Those data, moreover, contained in non-confidential Annex 26, come inter alia from Trade Data Monitor, which profiles itself as the world’s top supplier of trade statistics to governments, corporations, manufacturers and law firms. The applicants do not indicate how those data were manifestly incorrect for initiating the expiry review, apart from stating that the Commission made exaggerated adjustments to export prices using transport costs, a point that will be analysed below under the applicants’ fifth argument.

112

In the second place, the Court rejects the applicants’ claim relating to the different bases on which the Commission initiated and conducted the expiry review. It is clear from the wording of recital 27 of the contested regulation, and was not disputed by the applicants, that the Commission stated that it was perfectly factually possible and legally admissible that the evidence available to the party requesting an expiry review shows a likelihood of continuation of dumping, while the expiry review investigation will establish, based on the information collected from and verified with interested parties, that dumping is in fact likely to recur. Thus, the existence of evidence capable of establishing that expiry of the measures in question would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping suffices to trigger the initiation of an investigation into the matter.

113

As a result, the question whether exports to Brazil were used as evidence of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping is not relevant during the preliminary stage preceding the initiation of the review. The Court finds, in any event, that the applicants do not dispute the Commission’s findings relating to the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury, referred to in subsection 3.3 and section 4 of the notice of initiation.

114

For the same reasons, the applicants’ claim that the calculations in the consolidated request cannot be supported by the contested regulation must be rejected, given that they relate to a different investigation period. As stated in paragraph 112 above, it suffices that the consolidated request contain sufficient evidence to show the likelihood of dumping, without prejudice to a variation in those calculations during the investigation period beginning upon initiation of the review.

115

The fourth argument must accordingly be rejected as unfounded.

116

By their fifth argument, the applicants submit that the use of adjustments made to different transport and loading costs, according to the normal value calculation method used, is not justified and leads to an artificial conclusion as to the likelihood of continuation of dumping.

117

In that regard, first, the applicants claim that the intervener applied the same adjustment of EUR 25 per tonne to Estonia, Brazil and the European Union, by referring to the annex entitled ‘Limited Annex VIII / Non-Confidential Mirror Annex VIII’, without any specific consideration relating to each destination, although the rail logistics costs were not the same.

118

Secondly and in any event, the applicants state that there is no reason to make a different adjustment depending on the method used and that the intervener simply used the amount of transport costs that supported its claim relating to the likelihood of dumping, with the result that, had it made an adjustment of EUR 6 per tonne, instead of EUR 25 per tonne, it would not have been able to rely on any likelihood of dumping whatsoever.

119

In that regard, the Court notes that it is true that the intervener recognised that the annual average value of port costs and domestic rail logistics in Russia was EUR 6 per tonne during the investigation period and that that cost was calculated using the method based on the constructed normal value, which was based on the location of the Acron Novgorod plant, close to the border between Russia and the European Union.

120

Nevertheless, the intervener also provided actual domestic prices according to the commercial methodology available to it, and which were prices from another plant, further away from the Russian border, namely the Novomoskovsk Eurochem plant.

121

Given that those domestic prices were quoted EXW, it was necessary to make adjustments to transport costs and it was, therefore, justified, under the commercial methodology, that those costs were higher, that is to say, that they were assessed at EUR 25 per tonne.

122

The Court further finds that, although the applicants criticise the intervener for having failed to explain why it made the same adjustment of EUR 25 per tonne for each of the export destinations considered, including Brazil, they have not put forward anything showing how that calculation was incorrect and how the Commission misused that calculation as evidence showing that expiry of the measures in question would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping.

123

In any event, it does not matter that the arrival points for calculating the transport costs may differ for exports to the European Union and Estonia (from an unspecified port on the Baltic Sea) and for exports to Brazil (from the port of Muuga in Estonia); it was not necessary for the Commission to establish and check the exact location of those ports of export, given that adjustments relating to transport costs were inevitable, which, irrespective of cost, constituted, at the stage of initiation of the review, evidence showing that expiry of the measures in question would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping.

124

The fifth argument must accordingly be rejected as unfounded.

125

As regards the applicants’ sixth argument, they submit, in their observations upon referral, that the lack of adjustment for bagging costs to take account of the price difference between bagged and bulk ammonium nitrate justifies, on its own, the dumping margins alleged in the calculations based on the commercial methodology.

126

In that regard, the applicants state that there is considerable evidence showing that packaging ammonium nitrate in bags entails a price increase over bulk ammonium nitrate and that, once the average cost of packaging is deducted from EUR 142, the actual normal value for Russia is lower than the average export prices EXW to the European Union (sanitised) (EUR 133 per tonne), Estonia (EUR 120 per tonne) and Brazil (EUR 123 per tonne), as established in the consolidated request.

127

Thus, the applicants conclude that, if the intervener had correctly adjusted the prices reported by Chemcourier to omit the costs of bagging ammonium nitrate, it would have not been able to allege dumping.

128

In that regard, under Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure, no new plea in law may be introduced in the course of proceedings unless it is based on matters of law or of fact which come to light in the course of the procedure.

129

However, a plea which may be regarded as amplifying a plea put forward previously, whether directly or by implication, in the application initiating the proceedings, and which is closely connected therewith, must be declared admissible (see judgment of 13 September 2023, ITD and Danske Fragtmænd v Commission, T‑525/20, EU:T:2023:542, paragraph 98 and the case-law cited). In that context, to be regarded as an amplification of a plea or a head of claim previously advanced, a new line of argumentation must, in relation to the pleas or heads of claim initially set out in the application, present a sufficiently close connection with the pleas or heads of claim initially put forward in order to be considered as forming part of the normal evolution of debate in proceedings before the Court (see judgment of 5 May 2021, ITD and Danske Fragtmænd v Commission, T‑561/18, EU:T:2021:240, paragraph 183 and the case-law cited).

130

In the present case, the Court finds that the sixth argument has been put forward for the first time before the Court in the applicants’ observations upon referral. Although that argument was put forward in support of the applicants’ third complaint, under which it was argued that evidence based on the commercial methodology in the consolidated request is not sufficient to establish a likelihood of dumping, it concerns an alleged error in the adjustment of packaging costs, which was not even referred to in the application or reply or at the hearing in the initial proceedings before the Court, with the result that it cannot be considered as forming part of the normal evolution of debate in proceedings before the Court, within the meaning of the case-law referred to in paragraph 129 above.

131

The present argument must accordingly be rejected as inadmissible.

132

It follows from all of the foregoing that the applicants have failed to demonstrate that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in finding that, on the basis of evidence based on the commercial methodology, the consolidated request contained sufficient evidence of the fact that expiry of the measures in question would likely lead to the continuation of dumping within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation and that, on that basis, it was entitled to initiate the expiry review.

133

Consequently, it is not necessary to examine the question whether the evidence relating to the method based on the constructed normal value was sufficient in the present case for the purposes of determining whether an initiation of the review was well founded and, therefore, for assessing the lawfulness of the contested regulation, with the result that the second complaint of the third part of the single plea in law must be rejected as ineffective.

134

The action must accordingly be dismissed.

135

According to Article 133 of the Rules of Procedure, a decision as to costs is to be given in the judgment which closes the proceedings. In accordance with Article 195 of the Rules of Procedure, in judgments delivered after its judgment has been set aside and the case referred back to it, the General Court is to decide on the costs relating to the proceedings instituted before the General Court and to the proceedings on the appeal before the Court of Justice.

136

Given that, in the judgment on appeal, the Court of Justice set aside the initial judgment and reserved the costs, it is for the General Court to decide, in the present judgment, on all the costs relating to the proceedings brought before it and on the costs relating to the appeal proceedings in Joined Cases C‑554/23 P and C‑568/23 P.

137

Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicants have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission and the intervener, in accordance with the forms of order sought by them, in the initial proceedings before the General Court, in the proceedings before the Court of Justice and in the present proceedings after the case was referred back to the General Court.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber, sitting with five Judges)

hereby: