## Facts

- Extramet Industrie SA, a French company, was the largest importer of calcium metal into the European Community and refined calcium metal into pure calcium for downstream sale.
- Pechiney Electrométallurgie SA was the sole Community producer of calcium metal and a dominant supplier in the downstream pure-calcium market.
- Pechiney refused to sell calcium metal to Extramet, forcing Extramet to rely on imports primarily from China and the Soviet Union.
- A trade association acting on Pechiney’s behalf filed an antidumping complaint alleging dumping of calcium metal from China and the Soviet Union and resulting injury to Community industry.
- Following an investigation, Community institutions imposed definitive antidumping duties on those imports through Council Regulation (EEC) No 2808/89.
- Extramet sought annulment, arguing that any injury to Community industry stemmed from Pechiney’s own market conduct (including refusal to supply) rather than from dumped imports, and that the institutions failed to separate these causes.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Article 4(1) of Regulation No 2423/88, the institutions adequately established a causal link between dumped imports and injury by excluding injury attributable to other factors, including the conduct of the Community producer.
2. Whether the injury determination was unlawful because the institutions did not seriously examine competition-law-related factual considerations (dominance/refusal to supply) as potential alternative causes of injury.

## Decision

- The Court annulled Council Regulation (EEC) No 2808/89 imposing definitive antidumping duties on calcium metal from China and the Soviet Union.
- The Court held that the Council and Commission failed to comply with Article 4(1) of Regulation No 2423/88 because the record did not show that they actually examined whether the injury was attributable to dumped imports rather than to other factors, including Pechiney’s refusal to supply Extramet.
- The Court rejected reliance on a generalized institutional discretion in complex economic assessments where the file did not demonstrate consideration of relevant alternative causal explanations.
- Costs were awarded against the Council; the Commission bore its own costs as intervener.

## Legal Principles

- In antidumping injury determinations, the institutions must establish that the injury to Community industry actually derives from dumped imports and must disregard injury deriving from other factors, particularly the conduct of Community producers.
- A lawful causation analysis requires a serious examination of alternative causes raised by affected traders and an evidentiary record showing those causes were considered and excluded as the source of the injury found.
- Competition-law-type facts (e.g., dominant position, refusal to supply) may be relevant within antidumping proceedings as potential non-dumping causes of injury that must be evaluated in the causation inquiry.
- Institutional discretion in economic assessments does not excuse failure to demonstrate, in the record, that material arguments and alternative causal factors were examined.

## Conclusion

The Court set aside the definitive antidumping duties because the institutions did not demonstrate that they separated injury caused by dumped imports from injury plausibly caused by the Community producer’s own refusal to supply, as required by the governing causation rule for antidumping measures.


Extramet Industrie SA v. Council of the Eur. Comtys., Case C-358/89, 1992 E.C.R. I-3813 (Ct. J. June 11, 1992)