.
51 IT MUST FIRST BE STRESSED THAT NO PROVISION OF REGULATION NO 3017/79 COMPELS THE INSTITUTIONS TO ACCEPT PRICE UNDERTAKINGS WHICH ARE OFFERED . ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS 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 . NSK HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE REASONS FOR REFUSING THE UNDERTAKINGS OFFERED SET OUT IN PARAGRAPH 24 OF THE PREAMBLE TO THE CONTESTED REGULATION EXCEEDED THE MARGIN OF DISCRETION CONFERRED UPON THE INSTITUTIONS .
52 SECONDLY, IT MUST BE STATED THAT REGULATION NO 3017/79 MAKES NO PROVISION FOR THE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OF VOLUNTARY PRICE INCREASES MADE AFTER THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE INQUIRY . THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS INCLUDES AN INVESTIGATION, THE INITIATION AND COURSE OF WHICH ARE GOVERNED BY ARTICLE 7 . BY ALLOWING INTERESTED PARTIES TO MAKE KNOWN THEIR VIEWS THE INVESTIGATION IS INTENDED TO ALLOW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE PROVIDING A BASIS FOR THE TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING OR THE IMPOSITION OF AN ANTI-DUMPING DUTY . IT IS, AT THE SAME TIME, CLEAR FROM THE 14TH AND 15TH RECITALS IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE REGULATION THAT THE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT PREVENT RAPID AND EFFICIENT ACTION BY THE COMMUNITY . IN ORDER TO RECONCILE THOSE TWO OBJECTIVES, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE INVESTIGATION, DURING WHICH THE FACTS TO BE ESTABLISHED OCCURRED, SHOULD BE OF SPECIFIED AND LIMITED DURATION .
53 IT IS THEREFORE IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THAT THE ANTI-DUMPING PROCEEDING MAY NOT BE TERMINATED OR A DECISION TO IMPOSE A DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY MAY NOT BE ADOPTED MERELY BECAUSE THE COMPANIES WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING DUTY HAVE MADE VOLUNTARY PRICE INCREASES AFTER THE END OF THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE INVESTIGATION . THE LINE OF ARGUMENT PUT FORWARD BY NSK IS ALL THE MORE UNJUSTIFIED SINCE SUCH PRICE INCREASES MAY, IN APPROPRIATE CASES, GIVE RISE TO A REVIEW PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 14 OF REGULATION NO 3017/79, OR RESULT IN A REFUND OF THE DUTY COLLECTED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 15 THEREOF .
54 THIS SUBMISSION MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED .
III - SUBMISSION THAT NO ADEQUATE STATEMENT OF REASONS WAS GIVEN FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THE INJURY SUFFERED BY THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY WHICH WAS CONSIDERED EQUAL TO THE DUMPING MARGIN ESTABLISHED
55 THE APPLICANT, WHICH REFERS TO THE JUDGMENT OF 23 MAY 1985 IN CASE 53/83 ALLIED CORPORATION AND OTHERS V COUNCIL (( 1985 )) ECR 1621, CLAIMS THAT UNDER ARTICLE 13*(3 ) OF REGULATION NO 3017/79 THE COUNCIL IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE AMOUNT OF DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES DECIDED UPON IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE INJURY ALLEGEDLY SUFFERED BY THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY . IN THIS CASE THE COUNCIL DID NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE REASONS FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE DEFINITIVE DUTIES ADOPTED, IN SO FAR AS IT MERELY, IN PARAGRAPH 21 OF THE PREAMBLE TO THE CONTESTED REGULATION, REFERS TO THE CONCLUSIONS ON INJURY REACHED BY THE COMMISSION IN REGULATION