Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered on 13 December 1990

1 Original language: French.

2 OJ 1987 L 54, p. 12.

3 OJ 1984 L 201, p. 1.

4 See the judgments of 7 May 1987 in the ball-bearing cases (Cases 240, 255, 256, 258 and 260/84, [1987] ECR 1809, 1861, 1899, 1923 and 1975).

5 Sec judgment in Joined Cases 260/85 and 106/86 TEC v Council [1988] ECR 5855, paragraph 31.

6 See judgment in Joined Cases 277/85 and 300/85 Canon v Council [1988] ECR 5731, paragraph 37.

7 See, for similar cases in which reductions of the dumping margin did not justify amending the rate fixed with respect to the injury, the judgments of 5 October 1988, Brother V Council, paragraph 24 (Case 25/85, [1988] ECR 5683) and TEC V Council, cited above (paragraph 41).

8 See paragraph 95 of the reply.

9 See in particular paragraph 43 of the judgment in Minebea v Council (Case 260/84, [1987] ECR 1975).

10 See paragraphs 82 to 98 of the application.

11 See in particular paragraph 45 of the judgment of 7 May 1987 in Minebea v Council (Case 260/84, [1987] ECR 1975).

12 Paragraph 26 of the judgment in Canon, cited earlier, makes the same point with regard to construction of normal value.

13 See in particular paragraph 155 of the Reply.