TONNES OF CEREALS FROM ROTTERDAM TO DUISBURG WERE OF THE ORDER OF DM 4.80 PER TONNE FOR A CONTRACT FROM FEBRUARY 1975 TO JANUARY 1976 . THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT FIGURE AND THE FIGURE OF DM 4.76 ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION , WHICH MOREOVER REFERS , ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSION ' S EXPLANATIONS , TO CONSIGNMENTS OF 500 TO 1 500 TONNES , IS TRIFLING .
13IT FOLLOWS FROM ALL THE FOREGOING FACTS WHICH WERE VERIFIED AFTER BOTH PARTIES HAD PUT FORWARD THEIR ARGUMENTS AT THE HEARING THAT THE CRITICISMS MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE TRANSPORT COSTS BY THE COMMUNITY AUTHORITIES ARE UNFOUNDED .
THE TRANSHIPMENT CHARGES AT ROTTERDAM
14AS REGARDS THE CHARGES FOR TRANSHIPMENT FROM SEA-GOING VESSELS TO RIVER VESSELS AT ROTTERDAM , THE COMMISSION BASED ITS CALCULATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS PROPOSAL FOR THE FIXING OF THE THRESHOLD PRICE ON THE TRANSHIPMENT RATES OF GRAINWAVE BV , ROTTERDAM , ACCORDING TO WHICH THE AMOUNT ADOPTED IN THE CASE OF COMMON WHEAT ROSE FROM HFL 1.43 PER TONNE ON 1 JULY 1974 TO HFL 1.64 PER TONNE ON 1 MAY 1975 . ON THE BASIS OF THAT INFORMATION THE COMMISSION ADOPTED AN AMOUNT OF HFL 1.72 ( DM 1.83 ) WHEREAS THE PLAINTIFF , RELYING UPON THE RATES OF CHARGE OF THE VERENIGING VAN NEDERLANDSE GRANFACTORS EN GRANEXPEDITEURS , CONSIDERS THAT THE AMOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIXED AT A FIGURE OF DM 3.15 PER TONNE .
15IT IS NECESSARY HOWEVER TO OBSERVE THAT THE PRICES LISTED IN THE RATES OF CHARGE UPON WHICH THE PLAINTIFF RELIES ARE FIXED INCLUDING ' ' WEIGHING , RECEIPT AND INSPECTION , EVENING , NIGHT AND WEEK-END WORK ' ' . IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FILE THAT THE COMMISSION TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTORS OF WEIGHING AND INSPECTION WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE TRADING MARGIN . MOREOVER , SPECIAL COSTS RESULTING FROM NIGHT WORK AND WEEK-END WORK CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS COSTS WHICH AN IMPORTER MUST INEVITABLY BEAR AND WHICH THE COMMUNITY AUTHORITIES MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE MARKETING COSTS .
16ON ACCOUNT OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS , IT MAY BE STATED THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT SUCCEEDED IN ESTABLISHING THAT THE COMMUNITY AUTHORITIES UNDERESTIMATED THE TRANSHIPMENT CHARGES IN THE PORT OF ROTTERDAM .
THE TRADING MARGIN AND OTHER COSTS
17THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FLAT RATE AMOUNT ADOPTED IN THIS RESPECT BY THE COMMUNITY AUTHORITIES ( DM 4.40 ) AND THE FIGURE QUOTED BY THE PLAINTIFF ( DM 4.55 ) IS NEGLIGIBLE ; IT CANNOT THEREFORE CONSTITUTE AN INDICATION OF A MISTAKEN APPRAISAL BY THE COMMUNITY AUTHORITIES WHEN FIXING THE MARKETING COSTS .
18IT FOLLOWS FROM ALL THE FOREGOING STATEMENTS THAT CONSIDERATION OF THE FIRST QUESTION HAS DISCLOSED NO FACTOR OF SUCH A KIND AS TO AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF REGULATION NO 1173/75 OF THE COUNCIL IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO COMMON WHEAT .
THE SECOND QUESTION
19IN THE SECOND QUESTION THE NATIONAL COURT ASKS WHETHER REGULATION NO 1427/74 OF THE COUNCIL FIXING