# C_2012138EN.01000701.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Trimeles Protodikeio Serron (Greece) lodged on 5 March 2012 — Ioannis Khristodoulou, Nikolaos Khristodoulou, AFI N. Khristodoulou SA v Greek State

(Case C-116/12)

(2012/C 138/11)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Trimeles Protodikeio Serron

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ioannis Khristodoulou, Nikolaos Khristodoulou, AFI N. Khristodoulou SA

Defendant: Greek State

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Articles 29 and 32 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/1992 apply to the determination of the customs value of imported goods where the contract is for processing or working of materials (exported to the country of processing without being placed under the customs procedure of outward processing) which is not at the level provided for in Article 24 of that Regulation or which is otherwise insufficient to permit it to be held that the origin of the goods produced is the country where that processing or working was carried out? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Articles 29 and 32 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/1992 apply to the determination of the customs value of imported goods where the contract is for processing or working of materials (exported to the country of processing without being placed under the customs procedure of outward processing) which is not at the level provided for in Article 24 of that Regulation or which is otherwise insufficient to permit it to be held that the origin of the goods produced is the country where that processing or working was carried out?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is a distinction to be made where the import, on the basis of invoices and other documents held to be inaccurate, appears to have taken place under a contract of sale, but it is proven that the contract was for non-substantial processing of materials originating in the country of import in return for a specific fee, which can be determined, and that the declared customs value does not correspond to the real price payable or paid? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is a distinction to be made where the import, on the basis of invoices and other documents held to be inaccurate, appears to have taken place under a contract of sale, but it is proven that the contract was for non-substantial processing of materials originating in the country of import in return for a specific fee, which can be determined, and that the declared customs value does not correspond to the real price payable or paid?

| 3. | If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, is a distinction to be made where there is also evidence of a practice that constitutes abuse of Community rules with the aim of enabling the interested party to derive an advantage? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, is a distinction to be made where there is also evidence of a practice that constitutes abuse of Community rules with the aim of enabling the interested party to derive an advantage?

| 4. | If it is held that Articles 29 and 32 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/1992 can be applied to a case such as that described in Question 2, even when the objective circumstances and subjective factor of Question 3 coincide, what is considered to be the value of the component (in the present case sugar) which was incorporated into the imported goods and supplied at no cost to the importer, where the component in question, which could not be subject to a customs procedure of outward processing in accordance with Article 146(1) of the said Regulation, was not produced by him, but was acquired by him at the export price (which was lower than the price that applied on the internal market, since the product is subject to the refund system)? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If it is held that Articles 29 and 32 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/1992 can be applied to a case such as that described in Question 2, even when the objective circumstances and subjective factor of Question 3 coincide, what is considered to be the value of the component (in the present case sugar) which was incorporated into the imported goods and supplied at no cost to the importer, where the component in question, which could not be subject to a customs procedure of outward processing in accordance with Article 146(1) of the said Regulation, was not produced by him, but was acquired by him at the export price (which was lower than the price that applied on the internal market, since the product is subject to the refund system)?

---