# C_2011113EN.01000401.xml

| 9.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/4

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Fleischkontor Moksel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-23/11)

2011/C 113/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fleischkontor Moksel GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the holder of an export licence entitled to an export refund only if he is registered as exporter in box 2 of the export declaration lodged with the competent customs office (Article 5(1) of Regulation No 800/1999)? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the holder of an export licence entitled to an export refund only if he is registered as exporter in box 2 of the export declaration lodged with the competent customs office (Article 5(1) of Regulation No 800/1999)? (1)

1

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
  Is the Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) which is responsible for paying the refund bound by the subsequent amendment made by the customs office of export to the information entered in box 2 of the export declaration? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Is the Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) which is responsible for paying the refund bound by the subsequent amendment made by the customs office of export to the information entered in box 2 of the export declaration?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the negative:
  Is the office responsible for paying the refund entitled, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, to take the words in box 2 of the export declaration literally and to refuse an application for an export refund on the ground that the applicant for the refund is not the exporter of the goods covered by that application, or is the responsible office obliged, when there is a contradiction between the description of the exporter in box 2 of the export declaration and the previous document to which reference is made in box 40 and/or the holder of the export licence registered in box 44, to consult the applicant for a refund and, if necessary, to amend of its own motion the words in box 2 of the export declaration? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the negative:

Is the office responsible for paying the refund entitled, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, to take the words in box 2 of the export declaration literally and to refuse an application for an export refund on the ground that the applicant for the refund is not the exporter of the goods covered by that application, or is the responsible office obliged, when there is a contradiction between the description of the exporter in box 2 of the export declaration and the previous document to which reference is made in box 40 and/or the holder of the export licence registered in box 44, to consult the applicant for a refund and, if necessary, to amend of its own motion the words in box 2 of the export declaration?

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, OJ 1999 L 102, p. 11.

1

---