IS GENERALLY RETURNED WITHIN A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD .
21 NEXT , IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE BARRING OF CLAIMS ON THE GROUND THAT THE REQUISITE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED OUT OF TIME IS NOT A PENALTY BUT , AS A GENERAL RULE , THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE EXPIRY OF ANY PRESCRIBED PERIOD THE OBSERVANCE OF WHICH IS MANDATORY . IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ARTICLE 15 PROVIDES THAT DELAYS MAY BE JUSTIFIED BY EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO FORCE MAJEURE .
22 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR STATING THAT THE RULE IN ARTICLE 15 WHICH BARS CLAIMS SUBMITTED OUT OF TIME IS OUT OF PROPORTION TO THE AIM PURSUED BY THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATURE .
23 ACCORDINGLY , THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL COURT MUST BE THAT CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED HAS DISCLOSED NO FACTOR OF SUCH A KIND AS TO AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF ARTICLE 15 OF REGULATION NO 1380/75 .
SECOND QUESTION
24 DENKAVIT CLAIMS THAT THE LOSS OF THE T5 DOCUMENT OWING TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES IS A CASE OF FORCE MAJEURE . IT ADDS THAT IT INFORMED THE FUND OF THE LOSS OF THAT DOCUMENT ON 25 APRIL 1977 , THAT IS TO SAY WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD . IN ITS VIEW , THE THREE-MONTH PERIOD PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 11 ( 5 ) OF REGULATION NO 1380/75 FOR SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION FOR OTHER DOCUMENTS TO BE ACCEPTED AS EQUIVALENT IS OPTIONAL . IN SUPPORT OF THAT CONTENTION DENKAVIT RELIES ON THE COURT ' S JUDGMENT OF 6 OCTOBER 1982 IN CASE 302/81 EGGERS V HAUPTZOLLAMT KASSEL ( 1982 ) ECR 3443 .
25 IN THE FUND ' S VIEW , HOWEVER , THE MERE FAILURE TO RETURN THE T5 CONTROL COPY CANNOT BE A CASE OF FORCE MAJEURE , SINCE ARTICLE 11 OF THE REGULATION ALLOWS THE TRADER TO AVOID THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH AN UNUSUAL EVENT BY EXERCISING DUE CARE .
26 THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS THAT IN PRINCIPLE ACTS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES WHICH ARE BEYOND THE TRADER ' S CONTROL CONSTITUTE UNFORESEEABLE AND UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES IF THEY AMOUNT TO MALADMINISTRATION , THAT IS TO SAY IF THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES HAVE TAKEN NO ACTION AT ALL , HAVE NOT TAKEN APPROPRIATE ACTION OR HAVE TAKEN ACTION BELATEDLY . THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS HOWEVER THAT A SECOND CONDITION - NAMELY WHETHER THE TRADER HAS EXERCISED DUE CARE - MUST BE FULFILLED IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A CASE OF FORCE MAJEURE . IN THAT RESPECT THE COMMISSION CONTENDS THAT THE FAILURE OF A TRADER TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MAKING AN APPLICATION WITHIN THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD FOR OTHER DOCUMENTS TO BE ACCEPTED AS EQUIVALENT UNDER ARTICLE 11 ( 5 ) OF REGULATION NO 1380/75 IS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN ITSELF THAT HE HAS FAILED TO EXERCISE DUE CARE . IN THE COMMISSION ' S VIEW , STEPS TAKEN TO SECURE THE RETURN OF THE T5 CONTROL