MAY VERY WELL BE IN THE INTEREST OF THE PRODUCER-PURCHASER HIMSELF TO MAKE ADDITIONAL PURCHASES .
351 IN FACT LARGE FLUCTUATIONS OF THE HARVEST YIELDS, WHICH MAY FORCE A PRODUCER TO HAVE RECOURSE TO THE PRODUCTION OF ONE OF HIS COUNTERPARTS IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO PERFORM HIS OBLIGATIONS UNDER LONG TERM SUPPLY CONTRACTS WITH HIS CUSTOMERS, ARE PECULIAR TO THE SUGAR MARKET .
352 ( D ) IN ADDITION THE COMMISSION SUBMITS THAT IN CONSIDERATION FOR BEGHIN'S CONDUCT SZAG AND FRANKEN REFRAINED FROM SUPPLYING SUGAR TO THE SAAR WHICH TRADITIONALLY FORMED PART OF THE AREA IN WHICH FRENCH PRODUCERS OPERATED .
353 HOWEVER ATTENTION MUST BE DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT BEGHIN STATED THAT IT NEVER SUPPLIED SUGAR TO THIS REGION DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION WITHOUT BEING CONTRADICTED BY THE COMMISSION .
354 HAVING REGARD TO ALL THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT CANNOT BE RULED OUT THAT BEGHIN'S DELIVERIES TO SZAG AND FRANKEN AND BEGHIN'S FAILURE TO EFFECT OTHER DELIVERIES TO SOUTH GERMANY ARE NOT THE CONSEQUENCE OF A CONCERTED ACTION AND MAY BE EXPLAINED IN A DIFFERENT WAY .
B - SUCRE-UNION'S DELIVERIES
355 ( A ) SINCE SUCRE-UNION DID NOT SUPPLY SZAG AND FRANKEN WITH RAW SUGAR, THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THE PATTERN OF ITS DELIVERIES OF WHITE SUGAR IN SOUTH GERMANY CONSTITUTES SUFFICIENTLY STRONG EVIDENCE TO ENABLE THE CONCLUSION TO BE DRAWN THAT THE ALLEGED CONCERTED ACTION EXISTED SO FAR AS THE THREE BEFOREMENTIONED UNDERTAKINGS ARE CONCERNED .
356 AS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED ABOVE THERE ARE GROUNDS FOR THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE AMOUNTS SUPPLIED BY THE FRENCH COMPANY TO GERMAN NON-PRODUCERS WERE OF APPROXIMATELY THE SAME VOLUME AS THOSE DELIVERED TO SZAG AND FRANKEN .
357 THIS FACT IS LIKELY TO RAISE DOUBTS AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF A CONCERTED ACTION BETWEEN THE UNDERTAKINGS CONCERNED AND IN ANY CASE OF A CONCERTED ACTION WHICH WAS IN FACT IMPLEMENTED .
358 FURTHER, CERTAIN CONSIDERATIONS MENTIONED IN CONNEXION WITH BEGHIN'S DELIVERIES ALSO APPLY IN THIS CONTEXT, IN PARTICULAR THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN UNABLE TO MENTION A SINGLE INSTANCE OF A REFUSAL BY SUCRE-UNION TO SELL TO A GERMAN NON-PRODUCER, THE FACT THAT IT COULD BE IN THE INTERESTS OF SZAG AND FRANKEN, EVEN IF THEY ACTED INDEPENDENTLY, TO MAKE ADDITIONAL PURCHASES AND FINALLY THE CONCLUSIONS TO BE DRAWN FROM THE FACT THAT AS A RULE THE MARKET OF SOUTH GERMANY WAS IN EQUILIBRIUM .
359 ( B ) THERE STILL REMAINS FOR CONSIDERATION THE QUESTION WHETHER, NOTWITHSTANDING THESE FACTS, THE LETTER OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1971, WHICH IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN SENT TO SUCRE-UNION BY ITS GERMAN REPRESENTATIVE X, HAVING REGARD TO THE PATTERN OF SUCRE-UNION'S EXPORTS TO SOUTH GERMANY, CAN PROVE THAT THE INFRINGEMENT IN QUESTION WAS IN FACT COMMITTED .
360 WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE EVER WAS SUCH A LETTER AND, IF SO, WHETHER ITS CONTENTS ARE TRUE, X'S STATEMENTS CONFLICT WITH THOSE OF SUCRE-UNION AND SZAG .
361 EVEN IF IT MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT SUCRE-UNION AND SZAG WERE