In some isolated cases, the Court went even further and, exceptionally, found applicants individually concerned not on the basis of their procedural involvement but because of the substantial adverse economic effect that a particular measure had on them. The leading decision is Extramet v Council, where the largest importer of calcium metal into the EU challenged a Council regulation imposing anti-dumping duties on the importation of that product. The applicant was found to be individually concerned because of its position as the leading importer of calcium metal into the EU and because its economic activity had been seriously affected by the contested regulation. These were arguments, which, as we (p. 302) saw previously, had been consistently rejected, in the mainstream case law on individual concern - It could be argued that although the decision in Codorníu was crafted in later case law in terms of the existence of a ‘specific right’, some parallels can be drawn with the ruling in Extramet because both in Codorníu (implicitly) and in Extramet (explicitly), the Court alluded to the grave effect that the measures in question would have on the economic interests of the applicants - and it is therefore unsurprising that some applicants tried thereafter to extrapolate the Extramet findings in order to prove their locus standi. However, the Court justified its approach in Extramet by referring to the ‘exceptional circumstances’ applying in that case and has been unwilling to extend it to other cases. - Case T-598/97 British Shoe Corporation v Council [2002] ECR II-1155, paras 48–50. See also Case C-312/00P Commission v Camar [2002] ECR I-11355, paras [77]–[80], which indicated that being the main importer of a particular product was not, in itself, sufficient to determine individual concern.