61991C0284
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
GULMANN
delivered on 8 October 1992 (
*1
)
Mr President,
Members of the Court,
In the context of proceedings brought by the Belgium State against NV Suiker Export, the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Antwerpen seeks a preliminary ruling by the Court on the following question:
‘Is Article 15 of Regulation No 3330/74 of the Council of 19 December 1974 to be interpreted to the effect that an import levy is payable, even if it is not contested that the relevant goods were of domestic origin and were stolen when they were given the status of T 1 goods export to third countries with a view to the receipt of refunds, if those required to pay the import levies have already repaid the export refunds previously obtained?’ (
1
)
For a statement of the facts of the case and the legal arguments put forward in the written observations submitted to the Court, reference is made to the report for the hearing.
It seems clear to me that an import levy is not payable for goods originating in a Member State which have not been exported. To support that conclusion it is sufficient, as claimed by the defendant in the main proceedings, to point out that the system of import levies applies to importation of goods from third countries and that its purpose is to offset the difference between the lower world market price and Community prices. (
2
)
That obviously correct interpretation cannot be affected, as the Commission states, by the fact that movement of ‘goods which ... have been subject to customs export formalities for the grant of refunds for export to third countries’ under Council Regulation (EEC) No 222/77 of 13 December 1976 on Community transit (
3
) must take place under the procedure for external Community transit, that is, be covered by a T 1 declaration in the same way as goods not originating in the Member States and not released for free circulation. (
4
) No significance can be attached to the fact that as part of the customs procedure to rectify the position the national customs authorities for purely technical reasons required the goods to be declared for importation and consumption.
Conclusion
I accordingly propose that the Court should answer the question referred to it as follows:
Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 3330/74 of the Council of 19 December 1974 must be interpreted as meaning that no import levy is payable on goods of domestic origin which were stolen whilst placed under the T 1 regime for export to third countries, with a view to obtaining export refunds, where the export refunds previously obtained have already been repaid.
(
*1
)	Original language: Danish.
(
1
)	The Commission has stated in its observations that Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 3330/74 of the Council was replaced by an identical provision in Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 (OJ 1981 L 177, p. 4) and that the question from the court of reference must relate to an interpretation of that provision, since it appears from the case that by a letter of 19 June 1986 an important levy was demanded of the defendant in the main proceedings. However, it appears from the observations of the plaintiff in the main proceedings that the goods in question were declared stolen on 7 November 1978 and that the impon declaration subsequently drawn up is dated 9 January 1979. That date must be decisive and there Ís consequently no ground for reformulating the question from the court of reference.
(
2
)	See in this connection the fifth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 3330/74, which is as follows:
‘Whereas the creation of a single Community market for sugar always involves, apart from a single price system, the introduction of a common trading system at the external frontiers of the Community; whereas a trading system including import levies and export refunds, combined with intervention measures abo serves to stabilize the Community market by preventing, in particular, price fluctuations on the world market from affecting prices ruling within the Community; whereas, therefore, provision should be made for the charging of a levy on imports from third countries and the payment of a refund on exports to such countries which would, in either case, cover the difference between prices ruling inside and outside the Community when world market prices are lower than the Community prices;’.
(
3
)	OJ 1977 L 38, p. 1.
(
4
)	Article 1(2) of Regulation No 222/77 provides inter alia:
‘2.
The procedure for external Community transit shall apply to movement of the following goods:
(a)
...
(b)
goods which, though satisfying the conditions laid down in Articles 9 and 10 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, have been subject to customs export formalities for the grant of refunds for export to third countries pursuant to the common agricultural policy;
(c)
... ’.
The provision referred to in Article l(2)(b) was introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 2719/72 of the Council of 19 December 1972 amending Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 542/69 on Community transit (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (28-30 December), p. 24). Regulation No 542/69 was subsequently replaced by Regulation No 222/77. The goods in question previously came under the provisions on internal Community transit. It may be seen from the recitals to Régulation No 2719/72 that that provision was introduced ‘for administrative reasons and in order to avoid fraudulent practices’.