PLACED UNDER CONTROL , ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION ON THE CONTROL COPY , AT A DATE SUBSEQUENT TO 30 JUNE 1971 OR THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THAT DATE COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED CLEARLY .
18THE GERMAN AUTHORITIES ACCOUNTED FOR PAYMENT OF THE AID IN THOSE CASES BY REFERRING TO A STATEMENT MADE BY THE COMPETENT ITALIAN BODY TO THE EFFECT THAT IT WAS LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE , PURSUANT TO THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES BY THE MINISTRIES CONCERNED , THAT AID SHOULD HAVE PAID IN ITALY IN RESPECT OF CONSIGNMENTS FOR WHICH COMMUNITY AID HAD BEEN PAID IN GERMANY .
THE APPLICANT GOVERNMENT FURTHER REFERRED TO A COMMUNICATION WHICH IT RECEIVED FROM THE COMMISSION STATING THAT THE LATTER WOULD NOT OBJECT TO PAYMENT OF THE AID IN CASES WHERE , IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF THAT THE GOODS HAD BEEN PLACED UNDER CONTROL IN ITALY BY 30 JUNE 1971 AT THE LATEST , THE COMPETENT ITALIAN AUTHORITIES HAD FINALLY REFUSED TO PAY THE AID .
19IN THIS REGARD THE COMMISSION STATES THAT WHILE IT IS PREPARED TO ACCEPT THAT THE CONTESTED EXPENDITURE MAY , BY WAY OF AN EXCEPTION , BE BORNE BY THE EAGGF IF THE EXPORTING STATE CAN PRODUCE IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT THE SAME EXPENDITURE HAS NOT BEEN PAID BY THE IMPORTING STATE , SUCH EVIDENCE , IN ORDER TO BE VALID , MUST REFER TO SPECIFIC , INDIVIDUAL CASES AND CANNOT MERELY CONSIST IN AN AFFIRMATION THAT DOUBLE PAYMENT WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS IN FORCE .
20THE COMMUNITY RULES IN THIS FIELD ARE DRAWN UP IN TERMS WHICH DO NOT GIVE THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES THE OPTION OF ACCEPTING ANY OTHER PROOF THAT THE GOODS HAVE BEEN PLACED UNDER CONTROL IN THE IMPORTING COUNTRY THAN THE FORMAL PROOF PROVIDED BY THE CONTROL COPY OF THE TRANSIT DOCUMENT CORRECTLY COMPLETED AND STAMPED .
AS THE OBJECTIVE OF THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS IN QUESTION IS TO EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF DOUBLE PAYMENT AND THE POSSIBILITY OF THE GOODS BEING RETURNED TO ORDINARY COMMERCIAL CHANNELS , THE FORMALITIES RELATING TO PROOF MUST BE STRICTLY ADHERED TO FOR THAT PURPOSE , AND IN PARTICULAR TO FORESTALL ANY FRAUDULENT PRACTICE INTENDED TO EVADE THE SUPERVISORY MEASURES .
TO ACCEPT , AS THE GERMAN AUTHORITIES DID IN THIS INSTANCE , PROOFS WHICH DO NOT RELATE CASE BY CASE TO SPECIFIC CONSIGNMENTS BUT WHICH MERELY CONSIST OF GENERAL STATEMENTS AS TO THE SCOPE OF INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES IN THE IMPORTING STATE IS THEREFORE , IN ANY EVENT , INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY PROVISIONS IN THIS FIELD .
THE COMMISSION ' S REFUSAL TO CHARGE THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION TO THE EAGGF IS THEREFORE JUSTIFIED .
21ANOTHER DISPUTED ITEM RELATES TO AID PAID BY THE GERMAN AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF QUANTITIES OF SKIMMED-MILK POWDER EXPORTED TO ITALY IN CASES WHERE THE DATES WHEN THE GOODS WERE PLACED UNDER CONTROL IN THAT COUNTRY ARE NOT IN DISPUTE BUT WHERE PROOF THAT THE GOODS WERE PLACED UNDER CONTROL WAS NOT ADDUCED