tokens: In addition , it is common ground between the parties that that request was limited in scope to dumping . 23 It is apparent from the second subparagraph of Article 11 ( 3 ) of the basic regulation that , in essence , where the request is made by an exporter and is limited in scope to dumping , the need for an interim review requires that request to contain sufficient evidence that the continued imposition of the measure is no longer necessary to offset dumping . 24 According to case-law , as regards the processing of a request for a review limited in scope to dumping , the Council may , in accordance with those provisions , find that there are significant changes in the circumstances with regard to the dumping and is entitled , after confirming that those changes are lasting , to conclude that it is appropriate to amend the anti-dumping duty at issue ( see judgment of 28 April 2015 , CHEMK and KF v Council , T ‑ 169 / 12 , EU : T : 2015 : 231 , paragraph 37 and the case-law cited ) . 25 Thus , it is apparent from the wording of the second and third subparagraphs of Article 11 ( 3 ) of the basic regulation ( now the second and third subparagraphs of Article 11 ( 3 ) of Regulation 2016 / 1036 ) that the objective of the interim review is to verify the need for the continued imposition of the anti-dumping measures and that , in this regard , where the review request made by an exporter is limited to dumping , the institutions must first assess the need for the continued imposition of the existing measure and , on that basis , find a not only significant but also lasting change of circumstances with regard to the dumping ( judgment of 28 April 2015 , CHEMK and KF v Council , T ‑ 169 / 12 , EU : T : 2015 : 231 , paragraph 43 ) . 26 In the context of the application of Article 14 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2176 / 84 of 23 July 1984 on protection against dumped or subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community ( OJ 1984 L 201 , p . 1 ) , according to which a review was to be held where an interested party so requested , provided that , inter alia , that party submits evidence of changed circumstances sufficient to justify the need for such review , the Court of Justice noted that the review procedure was to be undertaken if there is a change in the circumstances on the basis of which the values applied in the regulation imposing the anti-dumping duties were established ( judgment of 24 February 1987 , Continentale Produkten Gesellschaft Erhardt-Renken v Commission , 312 / 84 , EU : C : 1987 : 94 , paragraph 11 ) .