.
8 THE HAUPTZOLLAMT , THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC AND THE COMMISSION SUGGEST , FOR THEIR PART , THAT THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION SHOULD BE THAT AN ALTERATION IN THE PRESENTATION OF THE GOODS , IN THIS CASE REPACKAGING IN DIFFERENT UNITS , ENTAILS FORFEITURE OF THE REFUND . THE HAUPTZOLLAMT LAYS EMPHASIS ON THE NEED FOR EFFECTIVE CUSTOMS CONTROL . THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC CONSIDERS THAT ANY ALTERATION IN THE PRESENTATION WHICH IS SUCH AS TO ENTAIL A CHANGE IN THE TARIFF CLASSIFICATION OF THE GOODS AFFECTS THE EQUIVALENCE OF THE ALTERED PRODUCT WITH THE PRODUCT DECLARED FOR EXPORT AND IS THEREFORE RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE EXPORTER IS TO FORFEIT THE REFUND . THE COMMISSION POINTS OUT THAT THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATURE , WHEN IT PROVIDED THAT CERTAIN OPERATIONS WERE TO BE PERMITTED WITHOUT AFFECTING ENTITLEMENT TO THE REFUND , CONSIDERED IT NECESSARY TO GRANT EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION , AS IN THE CASE OF ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 2674/80 WHICH AMENDED ARTICLE 9 OF REGULATION NO 2730/79 IN ORDER TO PERMIT GOODS TO BE FROZEN .
9 IN ORDER TO ANSWER THE QUESTION SUBMITTED , IT SHOULD IN THE FIRST PLACE BE NOTED THAT REGULATION NO 798/80 DOES NOT , CONTRARY TO THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY METELMANN , AUTHORIZE PRODUCTS SUBJECT TO THE CUSTOMS-WAREHOUSING OR FREE-ZONE PROCEDURE TO BE ALTERED BY , FOR EXAMPLE , BEING REPACKAGED IN DIFFERENT UNITS . THE EXPRESSION ' CHANGE OF PACKINGS ' WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF AUTHORIZED OPERATIONS SET OUT IN THAT REGULATION IS ALSO TO BE FOUND IN ARTICLE 1 ( 8 ) OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 71/235/EEC OF 21 JUNE 1971 ON HARMONIZATION OF THE PROVISIONS LAID DOWN BY LAW , REGULATION OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION RELATING TO THE USUAL FORMS OF HANDLING WHICH MAY BE CARRIED OUT IN CUSTOMS WAREHOUSES AND IN FREE ZONES ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1971 ( II ), P . 398 ) ALONGSIDE THE PHRASE ' DECANTING AND SIMPLE TRANSFER INTO OTHER CONTAINERS ' . THE REFERENCE TO THE LATTER PHRASE , WHICH MOREOVER IS UNLIKELY TO INCLUDE DECANTING OR TRANSFER INTO CONTAINERS OF DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS , WOULD BE ENTIRELY REDUNDANT IF THE VIEW WERE TO BE TAKEN THAT ' CHANGE OF PACKINGS ' ALSO INCLUDES REPACKAGING IN DIFFERENT UNITS .
10 ACCORDINGLY , IT IS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH WHETHER THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 9 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 2730/79 TO THE EFFECT THAT AN ALTERATION IN THE PRESENTATION OF THE GOODS IS ALWAYS SUCH AS TO ENTAIL FORFEITURE OF THE REFUND IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY , AT LEAST WHERE SUCH ALTERATION DOES NOT AFFECT THE RATE OF REFUND AND CONSEQUENTLY DOES NOT SEEM TO EXERT ANY INFLUENCE ON THE SYSTEM OF REFUNDS .
11 IN THAT REGARD , IT MUST BE EMPHASIZED THAT IN VIEW OF THE SUBSTANTIAL VOLUME OF GOODS EXPORTED FROM THE COMMUNITY EVERY YEAR WHICH QUALIFY FOR A REFUND , IT IS