1.

The general principle established by Council Regulation No 1224/80 of 28 May 1980 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes is the following (Article 2 (1]: ‘The customs value of imported goods is to be determined under Article 3 whenever the conditions prescribed therein are fulfilled.’ It is therefore necessary first of all to establish whether in this case the conditions prescribed by Article 3 were fulfilled. Article 3(1) provides that the customs value of imported goods is the transaction value, that is to say the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to the customs territory of the Community, adjusted in accordance with Article 8, provided that certain circumstances, set out in subparagraphs (a) to (d), are not present. None of those circumstances is present in this case; nor are the adjustments provided for in Article 8 applicable. It is tempting to conclude, therefore, that that is the end of the matter and that Article 3 (1) must be applied, so that the customs value of the imported meat must be assessed on the basis of the price actually paid by the importer. As we have seen, the importer paid the whole of the price which was agreed upon when the contract was entered into. In interpreting Article 3, however, the implementing provisions adopted by the Commission cannot be ignored. Article 4 of Commission Regulation No 1495/80 of 11 June 1980 implementing certain provisions of Articles 1, 3 and 8 of Council Regulation No 1224/80 (Official Journal 1980, L 154, p. 14), which came into force at the same time as the basic regulation, provides as follows: ‘Where goods declared for free circulation in the customs territory of the Community are part of a larger quantity of the same goods purchased in one transaction, the price actually paid or payable for the purposes of Article 3 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1224/80 shall be that price represented by the proportion of the total price which the quantity so declared bears to the total quantity purchased.’ In applying the concept of the transaction value it is thus possible to exercise some discrimination: what counts is not always the total sum actually paid to the vendor, but the sum paid for the part of the goods imported into the Community. The following sentence was subsequently added to Article 4: ‘Apportioning the price actually paid or payable shall also apply in the case of the loss of part of a consignment or when the goods being valued have been damaged before entry into free circulation’ (Article 1 of Commission Regulation No 1580/81 of 12 June 1981 amending Regulation No 1495/80, Official Journal 1981, L 154, p. 36). When part of a cargo is lost overboard or is completely destroyed during the voyage it is the portion of the price corresponding to the portion of the cargo delivered in good condition that is regarded as the price actually paid. But to what do the words ‘or when the goods... have been damaged’ refer? Do they refer to damage suffered by part of the goods or also damage which, as in this case, affects the whole of a consignment? A close reading of the provision tends to encourage the conclusion that the second interpretation is the correct one, for the reference to the ‘part of a consignment’ relates only to ‘loss’ and not to ‘damage’. The wording is not ‘in the case of the loss or damage of part of a consignment... ’. In German the situation is even clearer: ‘Im Falle eines Teilverlustes oder einer Beschädigung’ and not ‘Im Falle eines Verlustes oder einer Beschädigung eines Teiles der zu bewertenden Ware’. That Interpretation might be thought to conflict with the word ‘apportioning’ with which the sentence starts. In the case of damage affecting the whole of the goods one should speak not of ‘apportioning’ but of a ‘proportional reduction’. I think, however, that we may interpret the word ‘apportioning’ as including ‘proportional reduction’. Nor can the fact that Commission Regulation No 1580/81 came into force only on 15 June 1981, that is to say, after the importation of the goods in question, prevent its use in the interpretation of Article 3 of the Council regulation. As appears from the first recital in the preamble, that regulation was not intended to alter the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation No 1224/80. Indeed, it could not have such an effect. It is intended simply to make clear the meaning of that article. We are therefore entitled to apply it to the facts of this case. On the basis of the reasoning set out above one might therefore conclude that (i) Article 3 of Regulation No 1224/80 is applicable in this case; (ii) under that article, interpreted in the light of the Commission regulation, the price to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the customs value of the goods may be reduced in proportion to the damage suffered by the goods.