WHETHER CERTAIN EXPORTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN THE MAIN ACTION WENT TO THIRD COUNTRIES - AND CONSEQUENTLY COULD QUALIFY FOR THE APPROPRIATE REFUNDS - OR WHETHER THEY WENT TO ANOTHER MEMBER STATE, AS IS ARGUED BY THE DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN ACTION .
4 ( 2 ) REGULATION NO 19 AND THE MEASURES ADOPTED FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION MADE THE INTRA-COMMUNITY REFUND AND THE THIRD COUNTRY REFUND SUBJECT TO DIFFERENT CONDITIONS AS REGARDS BOTH THE GRANT THEREOF AND THE CEILING APPLICABLE .
THIS FOLLOWS, IN PARTICULAR, FROM A COMPARISON BETWEEN ARTICLES 19 ( 2 ) AND 20 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 19 AND BETWEEN REGULATIONS NOS 162/64 AND 164/64 .
THE DISTINCTION THUS MADE BETWEEN THE TWO SYSTEMS OF REFUND ADEQUATELY SHOWS THAT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN EXPORTS TO THIRD COUNTRIES AND EXPORTS TO MEMBER STATES HAS A SIGNIFICANCE IN COMMUNITY LAW, WITH THE RESULT THAT THE MEMBER STATES DID NOT HAVE AN UNLIMITED DISCRETION IN ITS APPLICATION .
5 NEVERTHELESS, ARTICLES 19 AND 20 OF REGULATION NO 19 PROVIDE THAT A REFUND " MAY " BE GRANTED FOR " EXPORTS TO THIRD COUNTRIES " OR EXPORTS " TO ANOTHER MEMBER STATE ".
THUS THE MEMBER STATES WERE FREE COMPLETELY TO REFRAIN FROM GRANTING REFUNDS, WHICH A FORTIORI INCLUDED THE RIGHT TO ADD CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF THE REFUND TO THOSE PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMUNITY REGULATIONS .
6 THEREFORE THE PRESENCE OF THE FACTORS DEFINING EXPORTS TO A THIRD COUNTRY WITHIN THE MEANING OF REGULATION NO 19, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THESE FACTORS WERE, WAS MERELY A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO, BUT NOT OF ITSELF A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR, THE GRANT OF A REFUND .
THUS EXPORT TO THIRD COUNTRIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF REGULATION NO 19 COULD NOT BE USED AS A GROUND FOR COMPELLING A MEMBER STATE TO EXERCISE THE POWER GRANTED TO IT BY THAT REGULATION .
7 BOTH THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 19 AND THE RECITALS IN THE PREAMBLE THERETO SHOW THAT THE REFUNDS PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATION WERE INTENDED TO OFFSET THE PRICE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MARKETS IN QUESTION .
IT FOLLOWS THAT " EXPORTS TO THIRD COUNTRIES " WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT REGULATION PRESUPPOSED THAT THE GOODS WERE OFFERED FOR SALE ON THE MARKET OF A THIRD COUNTRY, THAT IS TO SAY, THAT THEY MUST AT LEAST HAVE BEEN PUT INTO FREE CIRCULATION THERE .
NEVERTHELESS, WITHOUT INFRINGING REGULATION NO 19 A MEMBER STATE COULD REQUIRE, IN ADDITION TO THIS MINIMUM COMMUNITY OBLIGATION, PROOF THAT THE GOODS WERE " USED OR CONSUMED, TREATED OR PROCESSED " IN THE COUNTRY OF DESTINATION .
8 IT WAS FOR THE MEMBER STATES TO DETERMINE INDEPENDENTLY THE EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THAT EXPORT TO A THIRD COUNTRY HAD TAKEN PLACE, PROVIDED THAT THEY DID NOT ACCEPT INSUFFICIENT PROOF .
9 THE NATURE OF THE PROOF WHICH CAN BE REGARDED AS SUFFICIENT CANNOT BE EXHAUSTIVELY SET OUT, FOR IT DEPENDS TO A LARGE EXTENT ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE, AND IN PARTICULAR ON THE AVAILABLE