4.

I do not find those arguments persuasive. I will consider them specifically in a moment. However, first, I should like to observe that there is no link between “quota costs” and the importation of goods or there is a very slender and indirect link because it may be maintained that the charges constitute “conditions of sale”. There is a series of factors which tend to show that. Above all the acquisition of the quotas is a transaction between the vendor of the goods or the Community purchaser and a third party and is therefore clearly independent of the contract of sale. Next, that acquisition is not a function of a transaction relating to specific goods: the export licence which may be obtained as a result may in fact be used by the vendor for any goods of the same type intended for the same Member State of the Community. Finally, the price of the quotas: as has been seen, that is determined by the link between the need to export and quantitative restrictions on imports. The type and value of the goods are irrelevant. In the light of the above, let us turn to the Hauptzollamt's arguments. The literal interpretation which it places upon Articles 3 (4) and 15 of Regulation No 1224/80 is inadequate. One might rebut them by saying that whereas such rules may not include the “quota charges” among costs which may be excluded from the calculation of value for customs purpose, Article 8 certainly does not list them among the costs which must be included therein. But the truth is that such problems are not resolved by recourse to hackneyed and discredited maxims such as ubi lex tacuit, noluit. One must delve below the surface of the point upon which the Hauptzollamt relies: in other words, ask whether there is a reason which does not exist in the case of quota charges for the express mention of costs which may be excluded. Such a reason does indeed reside in the possibility that they form part of the price paid or payable. In that respect, as I have already noted, the two rules specify them one by one requiring that they be distinguished from that price; Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1495/80 of 11 June 1980 (Official Journal, L 154, p. 14), implementing certain provisions of the regulation on valuation of goods for customs purposes, does the same. Article 3 of that regulation in fact provides that certain costs borne by the purchaser (such as those relating to the right to reproduce the goods, a buying commission, etc.) are not taken into account in the calculation of the customs value “provided that they are distinguished from the price actually paid or payable”. Obviously, the Community legislature fears that the value of imported goods may be artificially reduced by means of arbitrary or fictitious separate invoicing. It seems to me that that suffices to explain why the two provisions are silent on quota charges. The lack of any association with the price of the goods, and thereby the genuineness of their separate invoicing, is in fact beyond doubt. As to the opinion of the Customs Valuation Committee (which, however, has only the force of a recommendation), I do not see how an argument contrary to the one which I have suggested can be based on it. It is true that in the circumstances to which it refers the quota charges were paid to a third party, whereas in this case the recipient of the payment is the vendor. But, in the context with which we are concerned, that fact is irrelevant. Whether the Community purchaser negotiates directly with the owner of the quota or charges the vendor with the acquisition thereof and reimburses him later, does not alter the fundamental fact: the person who benefits from the transaction is in every case the aformentioned owner and the relevant costs bear no relation to the consideration for the goods transferred from the vendor to the purchaser. A definitive confirmation of the interpretation which appears to me more convincing may however be seen in the objectives of the rule on valuation for customs purposes. Regulation No 1224/80 has two immediate objectives: to ensure conformity of the Community system with the principles of the Geneva Agreement of 12 April 1979 for the implementation of Article 7 of GATT and to anticipate the entry into force of that agreement within the Community. But it also has a broader purpose: the development of world trade by means of the establishment of a “fair, uniform and neutral system for the valuation of goods for customs purposes that precludes the use of arbitrary or fictitious customs values” (see the sixth recital in the preamble). If the quota charges were included in the valuation for customs purposes, the transaction value would be higher and so would lead to an increase in the customs duties on import. We should in fact have a more marked protectionism and the international textile trade would suffer from it, particularly the trade with developing countries: and that, in the light of what has just been said, is certainly not an outcome which is compatible with the objectives of Regulation No 1224/80.