1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 25 February 1985, Brother Industries Ltd ( hereinafter referred to as "Brother "), whose registered office is in Nagoya, Japan, brought an action under the second paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3643/84 of 20 December 1984 ( Official Journal 1984, L 335, p . 43 ) imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of electronic typewriters originating in Japan was void in so far as it concerned the applicant .
2 Brother is a company whose activities include, amongst other things, the manufacture of electronic typewriters which it sells mainly abroad . In 1984, together with other Japanese manufacturers, it was the subject of a complaint made to the Commission by an association of European manufacturers, the Committee of European Typewriter Manufacturers ( Cetma ), which accused it of selling its products in the Community at dumping prices .
3 The anti-dumping procedure initiated by the Commission on the basis of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2176/84 of 23 July 1984 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community ( Official Journal 1984, L 201, p . 1 ) led to the adoption of Regulation No 3643/84 imposing on Brother a provisional anti-dumping duty of 43.7 %.
4 That regulation, whose substantive provisions were to apply, according to the second paragraph of Article 3 thereof, only for a period of four months unless the Council adopted definitive measures before the expiry of that period, was replaced during these proceedings by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1698/85 of 19 June 1985 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of electronic typewriters originating in Japan ( Official Journal 1985, L 163, p . 1 ), which entered into force on 23 June 1985 and is contested in a second action which was brought by Brother on 12 August 1985 .
5 Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of the facts of the case, the course of the procedure and the submissions and arguments of the parties .
6 In those circumstances, and in view of the fact that the amounts secured by the provisional anti-dumping duty were collected, pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation No 1698/85, at the rate of duty definitively imposed, which in the case of Brother was lower than the rate set provisionally, it must be held that Brother cannot rely on any legal effect resulting from Regulation No 3643/84 .
7 In the light of the foregoing, the application has become devoid of purpose and it is unnecessary to give a decision upon it .