OF 25 UNITS OF ACCOUNT WHICH IT LAID DOWN .
ON THE ONE HAND , THE FACT THAT IT WAS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 103 AND 113 OF THE TREATY MARKS IT OUT AS A MEASURE COMING UNDER THE CONJUNCTURAL POLICY AND THE ECONOMIC POLICY RATHER THAN UNDER THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY .
ON THE OTHER HAND , POTATOES ARE AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TREATY , AND THE EXPORT TAX WAS DEVISED BY THE COMMISSION ' S DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR AGRICULTURE AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL COMPOSED OF THE MINISTERS OF AGRICULTURE IN ORDER TO KEEP PRICES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AT A REASONABLE LEVEL AND TO ENSURE SUPPLIES ; THESE ARE THE OBJECTIVES MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 39 ( 1 ) ( D ) AND ( E ) OF THE TREATY AS OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY .
FURTHERMORE CONFUSION WAS INCREASED BY THE FACT THAT IN ITS IMPLEMENTING REGULATION NO 485/76 OF 3 MARCH 1976 ( OJ L 56 , P . 23 ) THE COMMISSION ITSELF DECLARED APPLICABLE TO THE CHARGING OF THE TAX AT ISSUE ITS REGULATION NO 645/75 OF 13 MARCH 1975 LAYING DOWN COMMON DETAILED RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE EXPORT LEVIES AND CHARGES ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS ( OJ L 67 , P . 16 ).
THUS ALTHOUGH FORMALLY REGULATION NO 348/76 CANNOT BE REGARDED AS COMING UNDER THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY , IT WAS CLOSELY RELATED TO IT IN SUBSTANCE .
13THUS THE APPROPRIATE ANSWER IS THAT IN VIEW OF THE UNCERTAINTIES INHERENT IN REGULATION NO 348/76 , NATURAL JUSTICE DEMANDS THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVERTING THE TAX ON EXPORTS INTO NATIONAL CURRENCY THE EXCHANGE RATE WHICH AT THE MATERIAL TIME WAS LESS ONEROUS FOR THE TAXPAYER CONCERNED SHOULD BE APPLIED .
14QUESTION 2 ( B ) ASKS WHETHER THE FIXING OF THE TAX AT 25 UNITS OF ACCOUNT PER 100 KG INFRINGES THE PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 7 OF THE TREATY IN SO FAR AS IN THIS MATTER THE CURRENCY SITUATION IN THE EXPORTING COUNTRY COMPARED TO THAT IN THE OTHER MEMBER STATES HAS NOT BEEN OFFSET OR HAS BEEN INSUFFICIENTLY OFFSET .
15THERE IS NO NEED TO EXAMINE IN GREATER DEPTH THE GENERAL QUESTION THUS RAISED AND TO CONSIDER THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT CAN AND MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMMUNITY LEGISLATION , BECAUSE IT APPEARS FROM THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE COMMISSION THAT AS THE INTRODUCTION OF THE EXPORT TAX HAD A GENERAL PROHIBITIVE EFFECT THE TAX WAS APPLIED ONLY IN A FEW ISOLATED INSTANCES .
IT FOLLOWS THAT THE QUESTION IS PURELY THEORETICAL AND THAT IN FACT THE APPLICATION OF REGULATION NO 348/76 HAS NOT INFRINGED ANY PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION .
16THUS CONSIDERATION OF THIS QUESTION HAS ALSO DISCLOSED NO FACTOR OF SUCH A KIND AS TO AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF REGULATION NO 348/76 .
17IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING , IT DOES NOT APPEAR FEASIBLE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE EXISTING RULES TO STATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF NATURAL