Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered on 13 December 1990

1 Original language: French.

2 See the judgments of 7 May 1987 in the ball-bearings cases, Case 240/84 NTN Toyo Bearing v Council [1987] ECR 1809, paragraph 6; Case 255/84 Nachi Fujikoshi v Council [1987] ECR 1861, paragraph 7; Case 256/84 Koyo Seiko v Council [1987] ECR 1899, paragraph 6; Case 258/84 Nippon Seiko v Council [1987] ECR 1923, paragraph 7.

3 OJ 1987 L 54, p. 12.

4 See for example Case 312/84 Continentale Produkten Gesellschaft v Commission [1987] ECR 841, paragraph 22, and Cases 142 and 156/84 BAT and Reynolds v Commission [1987] ECR 4487, paragraph 13.

5 OJ 1986 L 239, p. 5.

6 OJ 1984 L 201, p. 1.

7 Cases 240, 255, 256, 258 and 260/84, [1987] ECR 1809, 1861, 1899, 1923 and 1975.

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

9 The same point is made in the ball-bearing cases supra, in particular NTN Toyo Bearing, paragraph 16.

10 In paragraph 48 of its defence, the Council states that the normal value was constructed pursuant to Article 2(3)(b)(ii) and not, as the applicant suggests, Article 2(4). That difference of opinion seems to me, however, to be somewhat artificial since the two provisions are related, in that in the event of Article 2(4) being applied, involving construction of the normal value, the latter is arrived at in accordance with Article 2(3)(b)(ii).

11 This point is made in the judgments of 5 October 1988, in particular in Canon, supra, at paragraph 26.

12 This point is made in the ball-bearing cases, in particular in paragraph 32 of Nachi Fujikoshi, supra.

13 The same point is made in paragraphs 57 and 58 of Canon, supra.

14 See paragraph 46 of the judgment in Canon, above.