. ACTUALLY USED IN COMPOUND FEEDING-STUFFS ' ) ARE TO BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE STARCH CONTENT OF A PRODUCT WHICH DETERMINES THE COEFFICIENT HAD TO BE DERIVED FROM PRODUCTS TO WHICH REGULATION NO 19/62 APPLIED .
17 IT IS APPARENT FROM THE VERY HEADING OF TABLE A : ' PREPARATIONS CONTAINING CEREALS OR PRODUCTS TO WHICH REGULATION NO 19 OR REGULATION NO 16/64 ( EEC ) APPLIES ' , TAKEN IN TURN FROM TARIFF HEADING NO 23.07 , THAT THE SYSTEM OF EXPORT REFUNDS APPLIES , SUBJECT TO WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IN ANSWER TO THE SECOND AND THIRD QUESTIONS , TO ALL PREPARATIONS CONTAINING CEREALS AND OTHER PRODUCTS FALLING UNDER REGULATION NO 19 , NO MATTER WHAT THE PROPORTIONS . THIS PROVISION RELATES TO ' PREPARATIONS ' AS SUCH AND NOT SIMPLY TO CERTAIN OF THEIR INGREDIENTS . THE WORDS ' CEREALS ' . . . ACTUALLY USED IN THE PRODUCT ' , WHICH THE NATIONAL COURT HAS TAKEN FROM ARTICLE 15 OF REGULATION NO 166/64 MUST BE REGARDED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SPECIAL PURPOSE OF THAT ARTICLE , WHICH IS INTENDED TO APPLY ONLY WHERE THERE ARE DISTURBANCES OF THE MARKET . THE USE OF THESE WORDS IN THIS QUITE SPECIAL CONNEXION THEREFORE CONFIRMS THAT FOR OTHER PURPOSES THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 166/64 AND OF ANNEX A THERETO ARE APPLICABLE WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO DISTINGUISH , FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE STARCH CONTENT , BETWEEN THE INGREDIENTS OF A COMPOUND FEEDING-STUFF COMING UNDER REGULATION NO 19 AND OTHER INGREDIENTS .
18 THE ANSWER SHOULD THEREFORE BE THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF APPLYING THE COEFFICIENTS LAID DOWN BY ANNEX A TO REGULATION NO 166/64 THE STARCH CONTENT OF THE PREPARATIONS REFERRED TO THEREIN MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE COMPOUND FEEDING-STUFF AS A WHOLE AND NOT SIMPLY WITH REGARD TO THE INGREDIENTS TO WHICH REGULATION NO 19 WAS APPLICABLE .
THE FIFTH QUESTION
19 THE FIFTH QUESTION ASKS WHETHER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 166/64 ARE NOT INVALID TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY FIX FOR PRODUCTS LISTED UNDER TARIFF HEADING NO 23.07 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF A STANDARD REFUND APPLICABLE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE QUANTITY WHETHER NEGLIGIBLE OR SUBSTANTIAL OF PRODUCTS UPON WHICH THE LEVY IS CHARGEABLE CONTAINED IN THOSE PRODUCTS ( AS THE COURT RULED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 9 MARCH 1976 IN RESPECT OF A REGULATION FIXING A LEVY ).
20 THE REFERENCE BY THE FINANZGERICHT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 9 MARCH 1976 ( CASE 95/75 EFFEM V HAUPTZOLLAMT LUNEBURG ( 1976 ) ECR 361 ) SHOWS THAT THE COURT MAKING THE REFERENCE HAS DOUBTS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF REGULATION NO 166/64 SINCE IT MIGHT LEAD TO THE GRANT OF UNJUSTIFIED ADVANTAGES SINCE IN CALCULATING THE EXPORT REFUNDS IT MAKES NO DISTINCTION ACCORDING TO WHETHER THE INGREDIENTS OF A COMPOUND FEEDING-STUFF FALL UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL RULES OF THE COMMUNITY OR NOT .
21 WITH REGARD TO THESE DOUBTS IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT THE COUNCIL ,