KEY TO ONE OF THE LOCKS WAS KEPT BY ESERCIZIO MAGAZZINI GENERALI , WHILST THE KEY TO THE OTHER WAS HELD BY THE PORT CUSTOMS OFFICE . THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES OF CATANIA REQUESTED BOTH ESERCIZIO MAGAZZINI GENERALI AND MELLINA AGOSTA TO PAY APPROXIMATELY LIT 78 000 000 AS CUSTOMS DUTY AND VALUE-ADDED TAX ON THE STOLEN GOODS TOGETHER WITH THE LEGALLY PRESCRIBED INTEREST AND COSTS .
3 IN JUNE 1979 THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES SERVED AN ORDER ON THE TWO UNDERTAKINGS REQUIRING PAYMENT OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED SUM . THE UNDERTAKINGS CONTESTED THAT ORDER BEFORE THE TRIBUNALE DI CATANIA WHICH RULED THAT THE SUM WAS NOT PAYABLE . THE ADMINISTRATION APPEALED AGAINST THAT JUDGMENT .
4 ITALIAN LEGISLATION PROVIDES THAT IN THE CASE OF GOODS ON WHICH CUSTOMS DUTY IS PAYABLE THE EVENT GIVING RISE TO THE FISCAL OBLIGATION IS CONSTITUTED BY THEIR RELEASE FOR CONSUMPTION IN THE CUSTOMS TERRITORY . GOODS ARE REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN DEFINITIVELY RELEASED FOR CONSUMPTION IF THEY HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY REMOVED WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE CUSTOMS OBLIGATIONS . HOWEVER , THE EVENT GIVING RISE TO THE OBLIGATION IS DEEMED NOT TO HAVE OCCURRED WHEN THE THE TAXABLE PERSON ESTABLISHES THAT THE FAILURE TO FULFIL HIS CUSTOMS OBLIGATIONS OR THE FAILURE TO PRESENT THE GOODS IS DUE TO THE LOSS OR DESTRUCTION OF THE GOODS THROUGH UNFORESEEABLE CIRCUMSTANCES OR THROUGH FORCE MAJEURE OR AS THE RESULT OF EVENTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE MINOR NEGLIGENCE OF A THIRD PARTY OR THE TAXABLE PERSON HIMSELF .
5 AS A RESULT OF CERTAIN DECISIONS OF THE ITALIAN COURTS CONCERNING THE WORD ' ' LOSS ' ' USED IN THE LEGISLATION , THE ITALIAN LEGISLATURE ADOPTED LAW NO 891 OF 22 DECEMBER 1980 WHICH GIVES AN AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THAT TERM . THE LAW PROVIDES THAT THE WORD MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THE ' ' DISPERSION ' ' ( DISPERSIONE ), AND NOT THE REMOVAL OF THE PRODUCT . THE CORTE D ' APPELLO THEREFORE CONSIDERED THAT REMOVAL OF THE PRODUCT ( THAT IS TO SAY , THEFT ) DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE SITUATIONS REFERRED TO BY THE NATIONAL LAW , AND ACCORDINGLY IT HELD THAT THE CONDITION FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE FISCAL OBLIGATION WAS NOT SATISFIED .
6 NEVERTHELESS THE RESPONDENTS TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE POSITION WAS DIFFERENT IN COMMUNITY LAW . THE COMMUNITY PROVISIONS PROVIDE FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE PAYMENT OF CUSTOMS DUTIES AND OTHER CHARGES WHEN GOODS HAVE BEEN DESTROYED AS A RESULT OF FORCE MAJEURE OR UNFORESEEABLE CIRCUMSTANCES . IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE THEFT OF THE GOODS WAS COMMITTED IN CONDITIONS WHICH WERE SUCH AS TO CONSTITUTE A CASE OF FORCE MAJEURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF COMMUNITY LAW .
7 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE CORTE D ' APPELLO STAYED THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE TWO CASES AND , BY THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ORDERS , REFERRED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING :
' ' MAY THE REMOVAL OF GOODS SUBJECT TO CUSTOMS DUTIES , CARRIED OUT IN