1 By an order of 25 October 1991, which was received at the Court Registry on 7 November 1991, the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Antwerpen (Court of First Instance, Antwerp), Belgium, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty the following question on the interpretation of Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 3330/74 of the Council of 19 December 1974 on the common organization of the market in sugar (OJ 1974 L 359, p. 1): "Is Article 15 of Regulation No 3330/74 of the Council of 19 December 1974 to be interpreted to the effect that an import levy is payable even if it is not contested that the relevant goods were of domestic origin and were stolen when they were given the status of T 1 goods for export to third countries with a view to the receipt of refunds, if those required to pay the import levies have already repaid the export refunds previously obtained?"
2 Reference is made to the Report of the Judge Rapporteur for a fuller account of the facts of the main proceedings, the course of the procedure and the written observations submitted to the Court.
3 For the reasons set out in the Opinion of Advocate General Gulmann of 8 October 1992, the answer to the question from the court of reference should be that Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 3330/74 of the Council of 19 December 1974 must be interpreted as meaning that no import levy is payable on goods of domestic origin which were stolen whilst placed under the T 1 regime for export to third countries with a view to obtaining export refunds, where the export refunds previously obtained have already been repaid.