# C_2011269EN.01003102.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/31

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 30 June 2011 — Koninklijke Federatie van Belgische Transporteurs en Logistieke Dienstverleners (Febetra) v Belgische Staat

(Case C-333/11)

2011/C 269/60

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Koninklijke Federatie van Belgische Transporteurs en Logistieke Dienstverleners (Febetra)

Appellant:

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 37 of the TIR Convention and the second subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of an official finding as to the place where the offence or irregularity was committed, and of any proof to the contrary furnished within the specified period by the guarantor, the Member State where the existence of the offence or irregularity is detected is deemed to be the Member State where the offence or irregularity was committed, even if it is possible, on the basis of the place where the TIR carnet was accepted and where the goods were sealed, without further investigation, to ascertain via which Member State situated at the external border of the Community the goods were unlawfully introduced into the Community? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 37 of the TIR Convention and the second subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of an official finding as to the place where the offence or irregularity was committed, and of any proof to the contrary furnished within the specified period by the guarantor, the Member State where the existence of the offence or irregularity is detected is deemed to be the Member State where the offence or irregularity was committed, even if it is possible, on the basis of the place where the TIR carnet was accepted and where the goods were sealed, without further investigation, to ascertain via which Member State situated at the external border of the Community the goods were unlawfully introduced into the Community?

1

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the negative, must the same Articles, in conjunction with Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC (2) of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, be interpreted as meaning that the Member State situated at the external border of the Community where the goods were unlawfully introduced is also competent to collect the excise duty when the goods have in the meantime been taken to another Member State, where they were discovered, confiscated and forfeited? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative, must the same Articles, in conjunction with Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC (2) of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, be interpreted as meaning that the Member State situated at the external border of the Community where the goods were unlawfully introduced is also competent to collect the excise duty when the goods have in the meantime been taken to another Member State, where they were discovered, confiscated and forfeited?

2

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.

2

---