# C_2014315EN.01003902.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/39

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 July 2014 — B&S Global Transit Center BV; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-319/14)

2014/C 315/63

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: B&S Global Transit Center BV

Appellant in cassation:

Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Other party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 203 and 204 of the Community Customs Code, (1) read in conjunction with Article 859 (in particular paragraph 6) of [the Regulation implementing the Community Customs Code], (2) be interpreted as meaning that, where the external Community customs transit procedure has not ended, but documents have in fact been produced which make it possible to assume that the goods have left the customs territory of the European Union, the fact that that procedure has not ended does not lead to the incurring of a customs debt by reason of a removal of the goods from customs supervision within the meaning of Article 203 of the Community Customs Code but, in principle, to the incurring of a customs debt on the basis of Article 204 of the Community Customs Code? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 203 and 204 of the Community Customs Code, (1) read in conjunction with Article 859 (in particular paragraph 6) of [the Regulation implementing the Community Customs Code], (2) be interpreted as meaning that, where the external Community customs transit procedure has not ended, but documents have in fact been produced which make it possible to assume that the goods have left the customs territory of the European Union, the fact that that procedure has not ended does not lead to the incurring of a customs debt by reason of a removal of the goods from customs supervision within the meaning of Article 203 of the Community Customs Code but, in principle, to the incurring of a customs debt on the basis of Article 204 of the Community Customs Code?

1

2

| 2. | Must Article 859(6) of Regulation No 2454/93 be interpreted as meaning that that provision concerns exclusively the non-performance of (one of) the obligations associated with the (re)exportation of goods as set out in Articles 182 and 183 of the Community Customs Code? Alternatively, should the clause ‘without completion of the necessary formalities’ be taken to mean that the ‘necessary formalities’ also include the formalities that must be completed prior to the (re)exportation in order to bring to an end the customs procedure under which the goods have been placed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 859(6) of Regulation No 2454/93 be interpreted as meaning that that provision concerns exclusively the non-performance of (one of) the obligations associated with the (re)exportation of goods as set out in Articles 182 and 183 of the Community Customs Code? Alternatively, should the clause ‘without completion of the necessary formalities’ be taken to mean that the ‘necessary formalities’ also include the formalities that must be completed prior to the (re)exportation in order to bring to an end the customs procedure under which the goods have been placed?

one

| 3. | If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, must the third indent of Article 859 of Regulation No 2454/93 be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the formalities referred to in Question 2 have not been completed does not, in a situation such as that in the present case — in which, on the basis of documentation, it has been shown that the goods left the customs territory of the European Union subsequent to transit within the European Union — preclude the condition that ‘all the formalities necessary to regularise the situation of the goods are subsequently carried out’ from being deemed to have been satisfied? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, must the third indent of Article 859 of Regulation No 2454/93 be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the formalities referred to in Question 2 have not been completed does not, in a situation such as that in the present case — in which, on the basis of documentation, it has been shown that the goods left the customs territory of the European Union subsequent to transit within the European Union — preclude the condition that ‘all the formalities necessary to regularise the situation of the goods are subsequently carried out’ from being deemed to have been satisfied?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).

2

---