8 ALFER HAS NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE THE COURT EITHER THE FIRST COMMUNICATION , DATED 10 AUGUST 1981 , OR THE SECOND , DATED 4 NOVEMBER 1981 , NOTIFYING IT OF THE QUOTAS .
9 BY LETTER DATED 25 FEBRUARY 1982 , THE COMMISSION COMPLAINED THAT ALFER HAD EXCEEDED BY 2 402 TONNES THE DELIVERY QUOTA SPECIFIED IN THE SECOND COMMUNICATION AND INVITED IT TO SUBMIT ITS OBSERVATIONS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 36 OF THE ECSC TREATY . IN ITS REPLY OF 9 MARCH 1982 , ALFER STATED INTER ALIA THAT IT WAS PREPARED TO REDUCE BY 2 402 TONNES ITS DELIVERIES IN THE COMMON MARKET DURING A SUBSEQUENT QUARTER IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE FOR THE AFORESAID EXCESS .
10 BY THE CONTESTED DECISION OF 24 NOVEMBER 1982 , THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE QUOTA HAD BEEN EXEEDED AND , APPLYING THE NORMAL RATE OF 75 ECU PER TONNE PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 12 OF DECISION NO 1831/81 , IMPOSED ON ALFER A FINE OF 180 150 ECU , THAT IS TO SAY LIT 241 498 291 .
11 BY ITS PRESENT APPLICATION , ALFER SEEKS A DECLARATION THAT THE DECISION IS VOID OR , IN THE ALTERNATIVE , A REDUCTION IN THE FINE . IN SUPPORT OF ITS APPLICATION IT CLAIMS THAT THE FIRST QUOTA NOTIFIED TO IT ON 10 AUGUST 1981 WAS MANIFESTLY UNJUST , THAT THE SECOND QUOTA NOTIFIED TO IT ON 4 NOVEMBER 1981 WAS NOT RECEIVED UNTIL AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE THIRD QUARTER AND WAS THEREFORE RETROACTIVE AND THAT THE COMMISSION ACTED INCONSISTENTLY IN AUTHORIZING ALFER TO CARRY FORWARD THE UNUSED PART OF THE QUOTA TO THE FOLLOWING QUARTER , WHILST REFUSING ALFER ' S OFFER TO REDUCE DELIVERIES IN A SUBSEQUENT QUARTER IN ORDER COMPENSATE FOR THE EXCESS .
12 THE FIRST TWO SUBMISSIONS CANNOT BE UPHELD SINCE THEY RELATE TO TWO INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS WHICH WERE NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE THE COURT IN DUE TIME . AS REGARDS THE THIRD SUBMISSION , IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT A REDUCTION OF DELIVERIES DURING A SUBSEQUENT QUARTER CANNOT RECTIFY A PREVIOUS IRREGULARITY , SINCE THE QUOTA SYSTEM IS APPLIED ON A QUARTERLY BASIS .
13 THE COMMISSION WAS THEREFORE CORRECT IN FINDING , IN THE CONTESTED DECISION , THAT THE APPLICANT HAD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER COMMUNITY LAW AND IN IMPOSING A FINE ON IT . CONSEQUENTLY , THE CLAIM FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION IS VOID MUST BE DISMISSED .
14 SINCE THE APPLICANT HAS CLAIMED , IN THE ALTERNATIVE , THAT THE FINE SHOULD BE REDUCED , IT IS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO WHICH IT REFERS CAN JUSTIFY SUCH A REDUCTION .
15 THE COMMISSION ADMITS THAT THE QUOTA SET OUT IN ITS FIRST COMMUNICATION WAS UNJUST AND THAT THE SECOND WAS NOTIFIED TO THE UNDERTAKING TOO LATE FOR IT TO BE ABLE TO ADJUST ITS DELIVERIES FOR THE QUARTER IN QUESTION . IT EMPHASIZES , HOWEVER , THAT AT THE TIME THE GENERAL DECISION IN FORCE DID