PRIOR TO 8 MAY 1977 ; ADMITTEDLY , THAT INVOICE IS DATED 2 AUGUST 1977 , BUT IT CAN IN NO WAY CONSTITUTE PROOF DISCREDITING THE DOCUMENT PRODUCED BY DI DARFO WHICH ESTABLISHED THAT THE ORDERS CONSTITUTING A CONTRACT - BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE PARTIES WERE IN AGREEMENT AS TO THE PRODUCT SOLD AND THE PRICE - HAD ACTUALLY BEEN PLACED BEFORE 8 MAY 1977 .
169 CONSEQUENTLY , THE APPLICANT ' S ARGUMENT MUST BE ACCEPTED AND THE SALES RELATING TO THOSE ORDERS MUST BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF THOSE IN RESPECT OF WHICH FINES MAY BE IMPOSED ; SINCE THEY REPRESENT 3.4 % OF THE TOTAL THE FINE IMPOSED ON DI DARFO MUST BE REDUCED BY 3.4 % , THAT IS TO SAY FROM 27 830 000 LIRE TO 26 883 780 LIRE .
( B ) RUMI
170 THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT THE COMMISSION WAS WRONG TO CALCULATE THE VALUE OF THE UNDERPRICING BY REFERENCE TO THE PRICE OF DM 540 PER TONNE OF CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT BARS , ON THE GROUND THAT IT SOLD ITS CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT BARS BY ALIGNMENT ON THE BASING POINTS SAARBRUCKEN AND OBERHAUSEN AND THAT AS A RESULT OF TRANSPORT COSTS THE PRICE PER TONNE SHOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO DM 451.87 ; THUS IT CONSIDERS THAT THE VALUE OF THE UNDERPRICING FALLS FROM 200 TO APPROXIMATELY 100 MILLION LIRE AND THAT THE FINE SHOULD BE CALCULATED ONLY IN RELATION TO THE LATTER SUM .
171 THE COMMISSION IS RIGHT TO POINT OUT , IN THE FIRST PLACE , THAT THE DOCUMENT PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM RELATES TO SALES SUBSEQUENT TO THOSE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE CALCULATION OF THE UNDERPRICING AND , SECONDLY , THAT THE FINAL DESTINATION OF THE GOODS IN QUESTION WAS THE NETHERLANDS ; IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES AN ALIGNMENT ON GERMAN BASING POINTS WAS CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 60 OF THE TREATY AND , AS THAT UNLAWFUL ALIGNMENT ENABLED THE APPLICANT TO SELL BELOW THE MINIMUM PRICES , IT ALSO CONSTITUTED AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE RULES ON MINIMUM PRICES , WITH THE RESULT THAT THE SUBMISSION RELIED ON BY RUMI MUST BE DISMISSED .
( C ) FERALPI
172 THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT THE COMMISSION WRONGLY ACCUSED IT OF HAVING CHARGED PRICES BELOW THE MINIMUM PRICES BY MEANS OF A GROUP OF INVOICES ON WHICH THE DISPUTED PRICES ARE ENTERED BY HAND , CLAIMING THAT SUCH ANNOTATIONS HAVE NO PROBATIVE VALUE SINCE THOSE INVOICES ARE EXTRANEOUS TO THE REAL CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP .
173 THE COMMISSION HAS PRODUCED COPIES OF TELEX MESSAGES RELATING TO THE SALES IN QUESTION WHICH SHOW A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SELLING PRICE EXPRESSED IN GERMAN MARKS , WHICH COMPLIES WITH THE RULES ON MINIMUM PRICES , AND THE AMOUNT INTENDED TO BE INDICATED ON THE INVOICE , WHICH IS EXPRESSED IN LIRE AND IS LOWER THAN THE MINIMUM PRICES .
174 AS THAT EVIDENCE WAS ALSO COROBORATED BY THE WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF THE COMMISSION ' S INSPECTOR , THAT SUBMISSION MUST BE DISMISSED