1 BY ORDER OF 19 JUNE 1979 , WHICH WAS RECEIVED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 26 JULY 1979 , THE BUNDESFINANZHOF SUBMITTED TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY THE FOLLOWING QUESTION FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING : ' ' MUST THE WORD ' EXPORT ' WITHIN ARTICLE 7 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1132/74 OF THE COUNCIL OF 29 APRIL 1974 ON PRODUCTION REFUNDS IN THE CEREALS AND RICE SECTORS ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1974 , L 128 , P . 24 ) BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT AN EXPORT LEVY MUST BE IMPOSED ON PRODUCTS COMING WITHIN TARIFF HEADING 11.08 A OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF EVEN IF THEY WERE EXPORTED IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 1974 UNDER OUTWARD PROCESSING ARRANGEMENTS AND WERE LATER RE-IMPORTED AS PROCESSED GOODS? ' '
2 THE QUESTION WAS RAISED IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ACTION INVOLVING , ON THE ONE HAND , A GERMAN UNDERTAKING WHICH EXPORTED SPECIAL MAIZE STARCH TO AUSTRIA UNDER OUTWARD PROCESSING ARRANGEMENTS WHICH WERE AUTHORIZED BY THE GERMAN CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES AND RE-IMPORTED THE COMPENSATING PRODUCT MANUFACTURED FROM SUCH STARCH AND , ON THE OTHER , THE HAUPTZOLLAMT HAMBURG-JONAS WHICH , WHEN THE GOODS WERE EXPORTED , CHARGED THE LEVIES FIXED IN THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSION ADOPTED ON THE BASIS OF THE PROVISION QUOTED IN THE QUESTION .
3 THE OBJECTIONS OF THE UNDERTAKING AND ITS APPLICATION LODGED WITH THE FINANZGERICHT HAMBURG WERE UNSUCCESSFUL . IT THEN APPEALED TO THE BUNDESFINANZHOF CLAIMING IN PARTICULAR THAT THE SPIRIT AND OBJECTIVES OF REGULATION NO 1132/74 PRECLUDED THE CHARGING OF AN EXPORT LEVY SINCE THE PRODUCTS WERE NOT SOLD ON THE EXTERNAL MARKETS BUT WERE RE-IMPORTED INTO THE COMMUNITY AFTER BEING PROCESSED INTO A DIFFERENT PRODUCT .
4 ACCORDING TO THE ORDER MAKING THE REFERENCE , WHILST THE BUNDESFINANZHOF ADMITS THAT THE WORDING OF THE PROVISIONS IN QUESTION TENDS TO FAVOUR THE VIEW OF THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES , IT HAS DOUBTS AS TO WHETHER THE OBJECTIVES IN VIEW IN CHARGING AN EXPORT LEVY ALSO JUSTIFY CHARGING THAT LEVY WHERE THE GOODS ARE EXPORTED UNDER OUTWARD PROCESSING ARRANGEMENTS .
5 AS THE BUNDESFINANZHOF HAS STATED , IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO FIND THAT ON A PURELY LITERAL INTERPRETATION THE WORD ' ' EXPORT ' ' COVERS CASES WHERE GOODS LEAVE THE GEOGRAPHICAL TERRITORY OF THE COMMUNITY UNDER OUTWARD PROCESSING ARRANGEMENTS . IT MUST IN ADDITION BE CONSIDERED WHETHER SUCH CASES ARE ALSO COVERED BY THE INTENTION OF THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATURE WHICH IS , ACCORDING TO THE RECITALS OF THE PREAMBLE TO THE REGULATION , TO AVOID DISTURBANCES ON THE MARKETS IN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES .
6 THE ESSENTIAL OBJECTIVE OF REGULATION NO 1132/74 IS IN FACT TO GRANT PRODUCTION REFUNDS INTER ALIA TO MAIZE USED FOR STARCH MANUFACTURE TO ENSURE THAT ITS PRICES ARE COMPETITIVE WITH THOSE OF SUBSTITUTE PRODUCTS . SINCE THE PRICES OF MAIZE ON THE WORLD MARKET USUALLY REMAIN BELOW THE PRICES OF SUBSTITUTE PRODUCTS IN THE COMMUNITY THE EXPORTATION OF MAIZE STARCH FOR WHICH SUCH REFUNDS HAVE BEEN GRANTED DOES NOT DISTURB THE MARKETS IN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF AN APPRECIABLE AND PERSISTENT INCREASE IN PRICES ON THE SAID MARKETS . IN THE LATTER CASE ARTICLE 7 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 1132/74 ENABLES THE COMMISSION TO INTRODUCE AN EXPORT LEVY TO COMPENSATE FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRICES ON THE WORLD MARKET AND SUPPLY PRICES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY WITH A VIEW TO REDUCING THE ADVANTAGES GRANTED TO COMMUNITY MANUFACTURERS TO AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL .
7 SINCE THERE IS NO SYSTEM OF COMMUNITY CONTROL ENSURING THE RE-IMPORTATION OF THE PRODUCTS EXPORTED UNDER OUTWARD PROCESSING ARRANGEMENTS OR SUBSEQUENT CHARGING OF LEVIES , THE VERY PRESENCE ON THE MARKETS IN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES OF COMMUNITY GOODS WHICH ARE INTENDED TO BE TREATED UNDER OUTWARD PROCESSING ARRANGEMENTS BUT WHICH ARE CAPABLE OF BEING SOLD ON THOSE MARKETS AT A PRICE LESS THAN THE MARKET PRICE MAY CAUSE DISTURBANCES .
8 FURTHERMORE , THE USE BY THE PROCESSING INDUSTRY IN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES OF CHEAP PRODUCTS FROM THE COMMUNITY MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PROCESSING OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTS IN SUCH NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES , WHICH WOULD ALSO CONSTITUTE A DISTURBANCE ON THE MARKET OF SUCH COUNTRIES .
9 IT FOLLOWS FROM THOSE CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE OBJECTIVES IN VIEW IN IMPOSING THE EXPORT LEVY THUS JUSTIFY SUCH IMPOSITION EVEN IF THE GOODS ARE EXPORTED UNDER OUTWARD PROCESSING ARRANGEMENTS .
10 MOREOVER , IT SEEMS IMPROBABLE THAT THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO CONFER UPON THE PROCESSING INDUSTRY OF NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES , WHICH IS IN COMPETITION WITH THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY , THE BENEFIT OF COMMUNITY REFUNDS INTENDED TO MAINTAIN FOR THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY SUPPLY PRICES WHICH ARE COMPETITIVE WITH THOSE OF SUBSTITUTE PRODUCTS BY REDUCING PRICES AT THE SAME TIME TO A LEVEL BELOW THOSE ON THE WORLD MARKET .
11 SINCE THE OUTCOME OF A LITERAL INTERPRETATION IS THUS CONFIRMED BY CONSIDERATION OF THE OBJECTIVES AND OF THE SCHEME OF THE PROVISION IN QUESTION IT IS NECESSARY TO REPLY TO THE QUESTION SUBMITTED THAT THE CONCEPT OF ' ' EXPORT ' ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 7 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1132/74 OF THE COUNCIL MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT ANY LEVY WHICH MAY BE INTRODUCED IN PURSUANCE OF THAT PROVISION MUST ALSO BE IMPOSED ON THE EXPORTATION OF THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION WHEN THEY ARE EXPORTED UNDER OUTWARD PROCESSING ARRANGEMENTS AND LATER RE-IMPORTED AS COMPENSATING PRODUCTS .