SEEKS A REDUCTION OF THE FINE IMPOSED .
2 REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE REPORT FOR THE HEARING FOR AN ACCOUNT OF THE FACTS, THE SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY PORTO NOGARO AND THE ARGUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE COMMISSION IN ITS DEFENCE .
3 IN SUPPORT OF ITS APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT, PORTO NOGARO, WHICH DOES NOT DISPUTE THE FIGURES CALCULATED BY THE COMMISSION FOR THE EXCESS PRODUCTION AND DELIVERIES, HAS PUT FORWARD TWO SUBMISSIONS .
4 IN ITS APPLICATION PORTO NOGARO CONTENDED FIRST OF ALL THAT, BY NOTIFYING IT OF A DECISION AUTHORIZING IT TO CARRY FORWARD ITS QUOTAS TO THE END OF THE FIRST QUARTER OF 1983 AND BY LIMITING SUCH AUTHORIZATION TO THAT QUARTER, THE COMMISSION DEPRIVED IT OF THE POSSIBILITY OF DERIVING ANY BENEFIT FROM SUCH AUTHORIZATION . IF THE AUTHORIZATION TO CARRY FORWARD THE QUOTAS HAD NOT BEEN SO RESTRICTED, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY EXCESS PRODUCTION OR DELIVERIES IN THE SECOND QUARTER OF 1983 .
5 IN ITS FIRST SUBMISSION THE APPLICANT IS IN FACT CALLING IN QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE DECISION OF 2 MARCH 1983, WHICH HAS BECOME CONCLUSIVE SINCE IT WAS NOT CONTESTED WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY THE TREATY . THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT AN APPLICANT MAY NOT, IN PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNULMENT DIRECTED AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL DECISION, RAISE AN OBJECTION OF ILLEGALITY AGAINST OTHER INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS WHICH WERE ADDRESSED TO IT AND WHICH HAVE BECOME CONCLUSIVE . THE FIRST SUBMISSION MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED AS UNFOUNDED .
6 SECONDLY, IN ITS REPLY, PORTO NOGARO ARGUED THAT THE COMMISSION' S FAILURE TO REPLY TO ITS REQUEST TO CARRY FORWARD THE QUOTAS TO THE SECOND QUARTER OF 1983 WAS EQUIVALENT TO TACIT AUTHORIZATION WHICH HAD THE EFFECT OF NULLIFYING THE EXCESS PRODUCTION AND DELIVERIES IN RESPECT OF WHICH PENALTIES WERE IMPOSED .
7 ACCORDING TO THE FIRST SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 42 ( 2 ) OF THE COURT' S RULES OF PROCEDURE, NO FRESH ISSUE MAY BE RAISED IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNLESS IT IS BASED ON MATTERS OF LAW OR OF FACT WHICH COME TO LIGHT IN THE COURSE OF THE WRITTEN PROCEDURE . AS PORTO NOGARO HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE SECOND SUBMISSION IS BASED ON SUCH MATTERS, THAT SUBMISSION MUST BE REJECTED AS INADMISSIBLE .
8 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF 9 OCTOBER 1985 MUST BE DISMISSED .
9 IN SUPPORT OF ITS APPLICATION FOR A REDUCTION IN THE FINE, PORTO NOGARO PUTS FORWARD SEVERAL ARGUMENTS .
10 IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT MAINTAINS THAT THE PRODUCTION IN EXCESS OF ITS QUOTA FOR REINFORCING BARS WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE FACT THAT IT HAD MISREAD ITS OWN PRODUCTION RECORDS .
11 THAT ARGUMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED, SINCE PORTO NOGARO MAY NOT RELY ON ITS OWN CONDUCT IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY ITS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ITS PRODUCTION QUOTA .
12 NEXT, PORTO NOGARO MAINTAINS THAT IT WAS UNFAIR TO IMPOSE PENALTIES ON IT FOR