Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tesauro

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. The Bundesfinanzhof is seeking an interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1224/80 of 28 May 1980 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes in order to give judgment in the proceedings pending before that court between the company Malt GmbH (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) and the Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (hereinafter referred to as the Haupt-zollamt).

2. The facts underlying the dispute in the main action are briefly as follows.

3. By order of 26 May 1988, the Bundesfinanzhof referred the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

4. I come to the relevant legislation. As a result of undertakings entered into by the Community as part of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (hereinafter referred to as GATT) the Council adopted on 20 January 1981 Regulation No 217/81 opening a Community tariff quota for high-quality, fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal for a total volume of 21000 tonnes.

5. The legal context of Article 3 of Regulation No 1224/80, which the Court is required to interpret, is quite different.

6. The Court has already had occasion to give a ruling in a case appreciably similar to that with which we are concerned.

7. However, in the Commission's opinion the analogy between the present case and the Ospig case is only apparent since there is an important difference between the certificate of authenticity and the expon licence required under the system for textile products.

8. Let me say straight away that those arguments do not appear convincing.

9. Then there is a point on the wording of the provision which must be borne in mind. On a proper view the price paid for the certificate represents not consideration for the goods but rather a payment to acquire the right to import the goods into the Community free from levy.

11. In the light of the foregoing considerations I thus conclude by proposing that the Court should reply as follows to the question put by the Bundesfinanzhof:

1 Original language: Italian.

2 OJ 1980, L 134, p. 1.

3 OJ 1981, L 38, p. 1.

4 OJ 1981, L 27, p. 52.

5 Sec the second recuai in the preamble to Regulation (EEC) No 217/81.

6 See the sixth recital in the preamble to Regulation (EEC) No 1224/80.

7 OJ 1980, L 71, p. 107.

8 OJ 1980, L 71, p. 1.

9 OJ 1980, L 333, p. 1.

10 See the ļudgmem of 9 February 1984 in Case 7/83 Ospig Textiigesellscha/t KG W. Ahlen v Hanplzollamt Bremen-Ost [1984] ECR609, paragraph 18

11 Ibid., paragraphs 13 and 14.