Opinion of the Advocate-General
++++
Mr President,
Members of the Court,
1. The major part of the submissions of the applicants in Cases C-176/87 Konishiroku, and C-177/87 Sanyo, comprises observations lodged jointly with those of the applicants in Cases C-174/87 Ricoh v Council, C-175/87 Matsushita v Council, and C-179/87 Sharp v Council. Those observations concern determination of the injury, evaluation of the Community interest and calculation of the anti-dumping duty. The submissions of Konishiroku and Sanyo in that regard must therefore be rejected for the reasons given in my Opinion in Case C-174/87 Ricoh, to which I would refer the Court.
2. As regards the observations of the applicants in the present cases concerning "the Commission' s practices in calculating whether dumping was present" which, occupying one typewritten page, form part of the introduction to their applications, I, like the Council, consider that it is unnecessary to examine them. As each of the applicants states that,
"since other exporters will be raising these matters in separate applications, and in order to reduce the volume of pleadings to be examined by the Court, this application will concentrate on the questions of injury and Community interest" (page ii of each of the applications),
it may be considered that those observations do not actually form part of their applications. Moreover, they are rather imprecise and could be easily refuted, first on the basis of the principle that the methods of calculating the normal value and the export price respectively are independent and, secondly, by virtue of the considerations set out in my Opinions in the other cases in relation to the submissions concerning the comparison of those two items.
3. In conclusion, I propose that the Court dismiss the applications in Cases C-176/87 and C-177/87 and order Konishiroku and Sanyo to pay the costs, including those of the interveners.
(*) Original language: French.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy