31. 12. 85 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 357/1 
(Information) 
COURT OF JUSTICE 
Action brought on 11 October 1985 by Nippon Seiko KK 
against the Council of the European Communities 
(Case 308/85) 
' (85/C 357/01) 
An action against the Council of the European Communities 
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European 
Communities on 11 October 1985 by Nippon Seiko KK, 
having its registered office 2-3-2 Marunouchi, Chiyoda-Ku, 
Tokyo, Japan, represented by Jeremy Lever, QC of Gray's 
Inn, Eleanor Sharpston, Barrister of Middle Temple and 
Robin Griffith, Solicitor of Messrs Coward Chance, Avenue 
des Arts 21-22, B-1040 Brussels with an address for service in 
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Me J.C. Wolter, 8, rue 
Zithe. 
The applicant claims that the Court should: 
1. Declare Council Regulation (EEC) No 1739/85 (*) 
void; 
2. Alternatively declare the said Regulation void in so far as 
it affects the Applicant; 
3. Further or alternatively declare the said Regulation void 
in so far as it purports to impose a definitive 
anti-dumping duty of 16,7 per cent upon ball bearings 
with greatest external diameter of more than 30 mm 
originating in Japan and manufactured or exported by 
the applicant, and a definitive anti-dumping duty of 45 
per cent upon tapered roller bearings originating in Japan 
and manufactured or exported by the applicant; 
4. Further or in the further alternative, declare the said 
Regulation void in so far as it purports to order that the 
amounts secured by way of provisional duties in respect 
of such ball bearings and/or tapered roller bearings 
manufactured by the applicant and exported to the 
Community should be definitively collected to the extent 
that the amounts do not exceed the applicable 
provisional anti-dumping duties or at all; 
5. In any event order the Council to pay the applicant's costs 
hereunder; 
6. Order such other relief as may be lawful or equitable in 
all the circumstances. 
Contentions and main arguments adduced in support: 
Infringement of the EEC Treaty and of rules of law relating 
to its application: — Wrongful comparison of particular transaction prices for 
exports with the weighted average of all domestic prices 
(infringement of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 3017/79 (2): The contested Regulation is defective in 
that, in establishing the weighted average resale price in 
the EEC for each type of bearing, only sales of that type, 
made at allegedly dumped prices have been taken into 
account and other sales of the same type, made at 
non-dumped prices, have been disregarded. The 
weighted average resale prices in the EEC, computed in 
that selective way (reduced by the alleged costs of getting 
the bearings from the factory in Japan to the customer in 
the EEC) have then been compared with the weighted 
average prices of all sales to third parties made by the 
applicant in Japan (allegedly also put onto an ex-factory 
basis). Such a comparison is clearly not a fair comparison 
for the purposes of Regulation (EEC) No 3017/79, and 
its use invalidates the finding in the contested Regulation 
in respect of the alleged margin of dumping by the 
applicant, 
— Failure to give notice of the change of methodology, with 
reasons for it, 
— Wrongful comparison of export prices on an ex-factory 
basis with domestic prices not on an ex-factory basis: The 
calculations on which the contested Regulation is based 
failed to make adequate deductions from the resale prices 
in Japan so as to put them on a true ex-factory basis and 
thus make them comparable with the constructed 
ex-factory export prices. Thus, the comparison made of 
resale prices in Japan and constructed export prices was 
not a fair comparison nor a comparison 'at the same level 
of trade', as it was required to be by Regulation 
(EEC) No 3017/79, 
— Lack of any or any adequate reasoning as to the 
appropriate rate of duty: the Regulation nowhere 
addresses the question whether duty at a rate less than the 
alleged dumping margin would be adequate to remove 
the injury; a fortiori the Regulation contains no reasoning 
to support a conclusion that a lesser rate of duty would 
not be adequate for that purpose. 
(J) OJ No L 167,27. 6. 1985. 
(2) OJ NoL 339, 31. 12. 1979.