THE REFUND AT A HIGHER RATE , THE RAISON D ' ETRE OF THE SYSTEM OF VARYING THE REFUND WOULD BE DISREGARDED AND ABUSE WOULD BE MADE POSSIBLE TO THE DETRIMENT OF COMMUNITY INTERESTS ' AND ' IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY FOR THE GOODS TO HAVE BEEN CLEARED THROUGH CUSTOMS AND PUT INTO FREE CIRCULATION AT THE DESTINATION ' .
14 ACCORDINGLY IT CANNOT BE ALLEGED THAT THE COUNCIL FAILED TO ESTABLISH CLEARLY THE LEGAL SITUATION REGARDING VARIABLE REFUNDS IN REGULATION NO 876/68 OF THE COUNCIL AND THIS FACT ALONE MEANS THAT THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE COUNCIL ARE UNFOUNDED .
15 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 4 OF REGULATION NO 1041/67 OF THE COMMISSION MEMBER STATES MAY ' REQUIRE , AS A CONDITION FOR PAYMENT OF THE REFUND , PROOF NOT ONLY THAT THE PRODUCT HAS LEFT THE GEOGRAPHICAL TERRITORY OF THE COMMUNITY , BUT ALSO THAT THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION HAS BEEN IMPORTED INTO A THIRD COUNTRY . . . ' .
ARTICLE 8 ( 1 ) OF THE SAME REGULATION LAYS DOWN THE PROCEDURE WHEREBY PROOF OF IMPORTATION INTO A THIRD COUNTRY SHALL BE FURNISHED AND PROVIDES IN PARTICULAR THAT THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITIES MAY ' REQUIRE ADDITIONAL FORMS OF PROOF ' .
16 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FILE THAT , EVEN BEFORE 1971 , THE COMPETENT GERMAN CUSTOMS OFFICE HAD OFTEN REQUIRED PROOF OF MARKETING IN THE COUNTRY OF DESTINATION - A REQUIREMENT WHICH WAS JUSTIFIED IN PARTICULAR BY THE NEED TO AVOID FRAUDULENT PRACTICES IN CONNEXION WITH THE REFUNDS .
MOREOVER THE APPLICANT ITSELF HAS CONCEDED THAT , IN ANY EVENT , SINCE THE DEMAND ON THE MOROCCAN MARKET WAS LIMITED , ONLY PART OF THE BUTTER DISPATCHED TO MOROCCO COULD REMAIN THERE AND THAT IT PROVED NECESSARY TO EFFECT A RE-CONSIGNMENT TO OTHER COUNTRIES WITH A LESS FAVOURABLE RATE OF REFUND .
THE APPLICANT HAS NOT PROVIDED A SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS ALLEGATION THAT THE COMMISSION HAD BY ITS VARIOUS COMMUNICATIONS LED IT TO BELIEVE THAT PROOF OF MARKETING IN THE COUNTRY OF DESTINATION COULD NOT BE REQUIRED .
IT MUST THUS BE HELD THAT NEITHER THE COMMISSION NOR THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITIES COULD HAVE INDUCED DOUBTS ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT AS TO WHAT COULD BE REQUIRED BY WAY OF PROOF IN CONNEXION WITH THE PAYMENT OF VARIABLE REFUNDS .
17 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE COMMISSION ARE ALSO UNFOUNDED .
18 IT IS CONSEQUENTLY UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER FURTHER THE OBJECTION PUT FORWARD BY THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE APPLICATION IS OUT OF TIME .
Decision on costs
COSTS
19 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
SINCE THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN ALL ITS SUBMISSIONS IT MUST BE ORDERED TO BEAR THE COSTS .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION ;
2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANT TO BEAR ALL