1.

Although this question does not require lengthy explanation, the reply to it is not obvious. In order to find a solution to this problem, it is necessary to recall the major features of the common organization of the market in the milk sector, as established by Regulation No 13/64, and the place therein of certificate DD4. Just as for all other goods, the attainment of the objectives of the common market must result, within the Community, in the free movement of agricultural products originating in the Member States or which are in free circulation there. However, this result, which can only be progressive, applies to products the market for which is governed by its own rules, as permitted under Article 39 et seq. of the Treaty. In general terms, the organization of the market is a system of price regulation which involves the fixing, in the interests of producers within the Community, of a price (‘target price’ or ‘reference price’), the intention being to guarantee that price against imports at lower prices by raising the prices of imported products to the level of fixed prices. The machinery used for this purpose is the levy. The latter is imposed on products imported from third States and also, to a certain extent and on a temporary basis, on intra-Community trade. In fact, under the system established in Regulation No 13/64 and until the adoption of Regulation No 804/68 of 27 June 1968, each Member State determines its own reference prices, within limits fixed by the Community, for the principal milk products, which may therefore vary in price in each State. The levy is also applied in order to protect the highest price fixed by a Member State against imports from another Member State hwere the price level is lower. However, the amount of this levy is calculated in such a way as to grant a trade preference to Community products and it is thus lower than the ‘third State’ levy. This system is of course provisional and the intra-Community levies were designed to disappear gradually. They were, however, the necessary means of avoiding the disturbance which the sudden and total abolition of barriers to trade would have caused in the economy of the Community as a whole. Contrary to the arguments put forward by Mr Craeymenst and Mr Vandewalle in the written observations which they submitted to the Court, evasion of the levies cannot be regarded as constituting an act which is contrary only to the interests of the importing country. It is not for commercial operators to anticipate solutions which the Community authorities regard as expedient only on a more or less long-term basis. The Commission emphasizes that to a large extent the Member States apply this levy machinery according to their own domestic rules. In fact, Article 27 of the Treaty imposes on them only a general obligation to take any steps necessary to approximate their provisions in respect of customs matters laid down by law or regulation, and this situation continued until the introduction of Regulation No 542/69 of the Council of 18 March 1969 based upon Article 235 of the Treaty. It is thus domestic rules which defined in principle the detailed rules for the practical application of the Community preferential scheme. In particular, as regards agricultural products which are the subject of a common organization of the market, the creation of Community arrangements and procedures has not prevented trade in those products being carried on according to the same customs procedures as other goods. However — and this is the second aspect of the question — as there exists a preferential Community scheme under which benefit may be claimed as of right for products which qualify under Article 9 (2) of the Treaty, a question of evidence immediately arises where it is necessary to establish that such requirements are in fact satisfied. Article 10 (2) of the Treaty intended to obviate the difficulties which the application of this system might meet as a result of domestic customs regulations which are frequently specific and formalistic, not to say over-meticulous. Concern over this matter resulted in the introduction of certificates DD1 and DD3 by the Commission's decision of 4 December 1968 and 5 December 1960, and of certificate DD4 by the decision of 17 July 1962. The latter — the only one which concerns us — adapts the system of certificate DD1 to the particular features of trade in agricultural products which are subject to a market organization. It constitutes a ‘document in proof” which entitles the goods concerned to the benefit of the intra-Community levy scheme. It is issued at the exporter's request by the customs authorities of the exporting Member State and is endorsed by those authorities on the export of the agricultural products to which it refers. Article 3 of the decision specifies that such endorsement may only be given where it is possible for the certificate to constitute the documentary evidence provided for in Article 1. The document, which is held at the disposal of the exporter once exportation has in fact taken place, is presented to the customs authorities of the importing Member State according to the procedures laid down in the regulations of that State. Under Article 6, the same authorities may in addition require the import declaration to be supplemented by a statement from the importer to the effect that the goods fulfil the conditions required for the application of the intra-Community levy.