CORRESPONDS TO THE INJURY CAUSED BY THE EXPORTER IN QUESTION .
38 FIRST OF ALL, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT THAT THE UNDERTAKINGS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT WERE REJECTED AFTER BEING GIVEN INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, IN THE COURSE OF WHICH IT WAS REQUESTED TO EXPRESS ITS VIEWS ON THE COUNCIL' S CRITICISMS OF THOSE PROPOSALS .
39 NEXT, IT SHOULD BE RECALLED, AS REGARDS THE COMPLAINT THAT THE STATEMENT OF REASONS WAS INADEQUATE, THAT THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD, IN PARTICULAR IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 26 JUNE 1986 IN CASE 203/85 NICOLET INSTRUMENT V HAUPTZOLLAMT FRANKFURT-AM-MAIN (( 1986 )) ECR 2049, THAT THE STATEMENT OF REASONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 190 OF THE TREATY MUST DISCLOSE IN A CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL FASHION THE REASONING FOLLOWED BY THE COMMUNITY AUTHORITY WHICH ADOPTED THE MEASURE IN QUESTION IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MAKE THE PERSONS CONCERNED AWARE OF THE REASONS FOR THE MEASURE AND THUS ENABLE THEM TO DEFEND THEIR RIGHTS, AND TO ENABLE THE COURT TO EXERCISE ITS SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION .
40 THAT REQUIREMENT WAS SATISFIED IN THIS CASE BY THE REASONS SET OUT IN PARAGRAPH 24 OF THE PREAMBLE TO THE CONTESTED REGULATION, FROM WHICH IT IS CLEAR THAT PAST EXPERIENCE IN THE BALL-BEARINGS SECTOR HAS SHOWN THAT UNDERTAKINGS DO NOT PROVIDE A SATISFACTORY SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY INSTANCES OF DUMPING IN THAT SECTOR .
41 LASTLY, IT SHOULD BE STRESSED THAT THE COURSE OF ACTION ADOPTED BY THE INSTITUTIONS WAS A CORRECT APPLICATION OF THE TEXTS AND FULFILLED THE FUNCTION CONFERRED UPON THEM BY THE COMMUNITY RULES .
42 NO PROVISION OF REGULATION NO 3017/79 COMPELS THE INSTITUTIONS TO ACCEPT PRICE UNDERTAKINGS WHICH ARE OFFERED . AS THE APPLICANT HAS ADMITTED, IT IS ON THE CONTRARY CLEAR FROM ARTICLE 10 THEREOF THAT IT IS FOR THE INSTITUTIONS, IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR DISCRETIONARY POWER, TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH UNDERTAKINGS ARE ACCEPTABLE . NACHI HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE REASONS FOR REFUSING THE UNDERTAKINGS OFFERED WHICH ARE SET OUT IN PARAGRAPH 24 OF THE PREAMBLE TO THE CONTESTED REGULATION AND FURTHER SUPPORTED IN THE COUNCIL' S WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS EXCEEDED THE MARGIN OF DISCRETION CONFERRED UPON THE INSTITUTIONS .
43 IN PARTICULAR, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT REFUTED THE SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNCIL TO THE EFFECT THAT THE UNDERTAKINGS OFFERED WERE INADEQUATE .
44 THE SUBMISSION PUT FORWARD BY NACHI MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED .
B - SUBMISSION THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY IS ILLEGAL IN VIEW OF THE SLIGHT DEGREE OF INJURY CAUSED TO THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY BY THE APPLICANT' S IMPORTS
45 THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY IMPOSED UPON IT DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO THE INJURY THAT ITS IMPORTS WERE LIKELY TO CAUSE TO THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY . AFTER STRESSING THAT THE INJURY REFERRED TO BY THE INSTITUTIONS RESULTS FROM THE AGGREGATION OF IMPORTS FROM JAPAN AND SINGAPORE, THE APPLICANT EMPHASIZES THAT IT IMPORTED SMALL BALL BEARINGS ONLY FROM JAPAN AND THAT ITS MARKET SHARES IN THE