TO AS ' THE ACCUSED ' ), SINCE THE LATTER WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DECLARATIONS MADE TO THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPORTING THE GOODS , SUMMONING THEM TO APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ABOVE-MENTIONED OFFENCE .
5 THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE FOUND THAT THE IMPORTATIONS IN QUESTION HAD BEEN EFFECTED UNDER THE INTERIM AGREEMENT AND REFERRED TO ARTICLE 5 OF PROTOCOL 2 ACCORDING TO WHICH THE BENEFIT OF THE ARRANGEMENTS UNDER THE INTERIM AGREEMENT IS ACCORDED TO PRODUCTS WHICH HAVE BEEN TRANSPORTED THROUGH TERRITORIES OTHER THAN THOSE OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES ONLY ' PROVIDED THAT . . . THE GOODS . . . HAVE NOT ENTERED INTO COMMERCE . . . NOR BEEN DELIVERED FOR HOME USE . . . ' . FINDING ITSELF IN SOME DOUBT AS TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RE-INVOICING OF THE GOODS IN RELATION TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE EXPRESSION ' ENTERED INTO COMMERCE ' , THE NATIONAL COURT CONSIDERED THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE REFERRED TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTION :
' IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE PREFERENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY AND YUGOSLAVIA , CAN THE RE-INVOICING , IN A THIRD COUNTRY OF GOODS ORIGINATING IN YUGOSLAVIA BE REGARDED AS AN ENTRY INTO COMMERCE OR DELIVERY FOR HOME USE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 5 OF PROTOCOL 2 CONCERNING THE DEFINITION OF THE CONCEPT OF ORIGINATING PRODUCTS AND METHODS OF ADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION?
'
6 WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS WERE SUBMITTED AND ORAL ARGUMENT PRESENTED ONLY BY THE ACCUSED AND THE COMMISSION . THEY MAINTAIN THAT A SIMPLE COMMERCIAL OPERATION SUCH AS RE-INVOICING , WHERE THE GOODS ARE NOT CLEARED THROUGH CUSTOMS , RELEASED INTO FREE CIRCULATION OR PROCESSED IN ANY WAY , CANNOT CONSTITUTE AN ENTRY INTO COMMERCE . THE COMMISSION ADDS THAT ARTICLE 5 OF PROTOCOL 2 IS INTENDED , IN THE FIRST PLACE , TO ENSURE THAT NO SUBSTITUTION OCCURS DURING THE TRANSPORT OF THE GOODS AND , SECONDLY , TO PREVENT THIRD COUNTRIES FROM TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT AGREED UPON BY RE-EXPORTING TO THE COMMUNITY GOODS WHICH WERE ORIGINALLY INTENDED FOR THE MARKET OF THE THIRD COUNTRY . MOREOVER THE INTERIM AGREEMENT IS NOT CONCERNED WITH PURELY FINANCIAL ADVANTAGES CONNECTED WITH IMPORTATION OR ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION .
7 IN ORDER TO REPLY TO THE QUESTION REFERRED TO THE COURT , IT SHOULD FIRST BE NOTED THAT , ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL 2 , THE INTERIM AGREEMENT APPLIES ONLY TO PRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN THE TWO CONTRACTING PARTIES WHICH HAVE BEEN TRANSPORTED DIRECTLY FROM ONE TERRITORY TO THE OTHER . BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 5 ( 1 ) GOODS ARE TO BE REGARDED AS TRANSPORTED DIRECTLY WHERE THEIR TRANSPORT IS EFFECTED WITHOUT ENTERING INTO TERRITORY OTHER THAN THAT OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES . THAT PROVISION HOWEVER EXTENDS THE CONCEPT OF DIRECT TRANSPORT TO GOODS WHICH ARE TRANSPORTED THROUGH TERRITORY OTHER THAN THAT OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES BUT HAVE REMAINED