Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered on 13 December 1990

1 Original language: French.

2 OJ 1987 L 54, p. 12.

3 In their decision, the insiitulions call firms such as Gestetner Original Equipment Manufacturers and I shall follow that practice, though it should be pointed out that they are in fact companies which buy equipment from original manufacturers and sell it under their own brand-names.

4 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84 of 23 July 1984 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (OJ 1984 L 201, p. 1).

5 See Joined Cases 133 and 150/87 Nashua v Commission and Council, supra, paragraph 30, and Joined Cases 277/85 and 300/85 Canon v Council [1988] ECR 5731, paragraph 15.

6 See for example paragraph 18 of die judgment in Joined Cases 273/85 and 107/86 Silver Seiko v Council [1988] ECR 5927, from which il is apparent thai the institutions did not overstep their discretion in using, for the construction of normal value in the case of an exponer which did not sell on the domestic market, the profil margin determined for another exponer. In the present case, the margin used was the lowest of those determined for undertakings which sold sufficient quantities on the domeslic market.

7 OJ 1988 L 209, p. 1.

8 OJ 1987 L 207, p. 21. In its Decision No 3499/87/ECSC of 19 November 1987 imposing a definitive antidumping duty (OJ 1987 L 330, p. 42) the Commission confirmed, in the absence of any new evidence, its interim conclusions concerning in particular the dumping and the injury.