THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY, AND, AS A LAST RESORT, BY THE COMPETENT COURTS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE GENERAL PROCEDURES AND PRINCIPLES PREVAILING IN THE APPLICATION OF THE CUSTOMS TARIFF;
39 IN THE ABSENCE OF BINDING INDICATIONS FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE NOTE APPEARING IN THE ANNEX TO REGULATION NO 1052/68, REGARD MAY BE HAD TO SEVERAL FACTORS ENABLING THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE CATEGORIES OF CLASSIFICATION OF HEADINGS 11.01 AND 23.02;
40 IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE " FLOURS " REFERRED TO IN HEADING 11.01 MUST ALWAYS, OF NECESSITY, HAVE A STARCH CONTENT EXCEEDING, AND AN ASH AND CELLULOSE CONTENT LESS THAN THAT OF THE ORIGINAL CEREAL;
41 EXPLANATORY NOTES WERE ALREADY IN EXISTENCE WHEN THE EXPORTS IN DISPUTE WERE EFFECTED, WHICH, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE CONCERNED WITH CEREALS OTHER THAN BARLEY, SANCTIONED THE ADOPTION OF A STARCH CONTENT OF 45 PER CENT AS A DECISIVE CRITERION OF CLASSIFICATION IN THAT SPHERE;
42 IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT THE NOTE INSERTED IN THE ANNEX TO REGULATION 1052/68, FAR FROM INTRODUCING AN INNOVATION INTO THE PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION PREVIOUSLY IN FORCE, RESTRICTED ITSELF TO ESTABLISHING PRECISE CRITERIA WHICH WERE THENCEFORTH AUTHORITATIVELY IMPOSED;
43 IT FOLLOWS THAT THE CRITERIA EMERGING FROM THAT NOTE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS CONFLICTING WITH THOSE PREVIOUSLY APPLIED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NORMAL PROCEDURES OF INTERPRETATION OF THE CUSTOMS TARIFF;
44 THE VARIOUS QUESTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN REFERRED MUST BE ANSWERED IN THE LIGHT OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS;
45 THE EIGHTH QUESTION ASKS WHETHER THE NOTE IN DISPUTE IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS DEVOID OF FORCE AS BEING INCOMPATIBLE WITH ANY PROVISION OF THE TREATY OR OF A REGULATION ADOPTED IN IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF OR OF A PRINCIPLE OF LAW INHERENT IN THE TREATY;
46 IT EMERGES FROM THE ORDER REFERRING THE CASE, THE STATEMENTS OF CASE AND THE ORAL ARGUMENTS THAT THIS QUESTION IS BASED ON THE CRITICISMS RAISED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION ON THE GROUNDS OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE NOTE IN QUESTION WAS INTRODUCED, DESCRIBED AS " SURREPTITIOUS " AND THE LEGAL UNCERTAINTY WHICH RESULTED FROM THAT LEGISLATIVE " MODIFICATION ";
47 AS IS SET FORTH ABOVE, NO CRITICISM CAN BE UPHELD AGAINST THE LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE, EMPLOYED TO CLARIFY, AUTHORITATIVELY AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN TWO TARIFF HEADINGS THE INTERPRETATION OF WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY GIVEN RISE TO DIFFERENCES OF OPINION;
48 THE NOTE WAS ADOPTED BY LEGITIMATE LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE, BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY WITH THE AIM OF ESTABLISHING BOTH THE AGRICULTURAL RULES AND THE TARIFF RULES OF THE COMMUNITY, AND CANNOT THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED INCOMPATIBLE WITH A PROVISION OF THE TREATY OR OF THE SECONDARY LEGISLATION, NOR WITH ANY PRINCIPLE GOVERNING THE APPLICATION OF THESE MEASURES;
49 THE NINTH QUESTION ASKS WHETHER THE NOTE IN DISPUTE MAY BE VITIATED BY THE FACT THAT IT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR A TRANSITIONAL PERIOD;
50 IN THIS CASE IT IS SUFFICIENT TO FIND THAT THE SOLE OBJECTIVE OF THAT NOTE WAS TO CLARIFY THE