# C_2016136EN.01001901.xml

| 18.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 February 2016 — Heta Asset Resolution Bulgaria OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna

(Case C-83/16)

(2016/C 136/25)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Heta Asset Resolution Bulgaria OOD

Applicant:

Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 161(5) and Article 210(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that an exporter of goods from the customs territory of the Community is the person established in that territory who is a party to the contract for the sale of the goods to a person established in a third country, where that contract is the basis for placing the goods under the customs export procedure, according to that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 161(5) and Article 210(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that an exporter of goods from the customs territory of the Community is the person established in that territory who is a party to the contract for the sale of the goods to a person established in a third country, where that contract is the basis for placing the goods under the customs export procedure, according to that regulation?

1

| 2. | Must Article 161(1) and Article 210(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that export takes place and an export customs debt is incurred in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in relation to a vessel (yacht) flying the flag of a Member State, only on the basis of a contract of sale to a person established in a third country and removal of that vessel from the shipping register of that Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 161(1) and Article 210(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that export takes place and an export customs debt is incurred in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in relation to a vessel (yacht) flying the flag of a Member State, only on the basis of a contract of sale to a person established in a third country and removal of that vessel from the shipping register of that Member State?

| 3. | Must subparagraph 3(b) of Article 795(1) of Commission Regulation No 2454/93 (2) 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, when exporting a vessel (yacht) flying the flag of a Member State, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a contract for the sale of the vessel to a person established in a third country and removal of that vessel from the shipping register of that Member State constitute sufficient evidence within the meaning of that provision? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must subparagraph 3(b) of Article 795(1) of Commission Regulation No 2454/93 (2) 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, when exporting a vessel (yacht) flying the flag of a Member State, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a contract for the sale of the vessel to a person established in a third country and removal of that vessel from the shipping register of that Member State constitute sufficient evidence within the meaning of that provision?

2

| 4. | Does it follow from subparagraph 3(b) and subparagraph 4 of Article 795(1) and subparagraph 4 of Article 795(1) in conjunction with Article 796e(1)(b) of Commission Regulation 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 that the assessment [regarding the existence] of sufficient evidence under Article 796da(4) of that regulation by the relevant competent customs authority, in the circumstances at issue in the main proceedings, is binding and not subject to review by the customs authority competent to issue a retrospective customs declaration within the meaning of the first provision? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does it follow from subparagraph 3(b) and subparagraph 4 of Article 795(1) and subparagraph 4 of Article 795(1) in conjunction with Article 796e(1)(b) of Commission Regulation 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 that the assessment [regarding the existence] of sufficient evidence under Article 796da(4) of that regulation by the relevant competent customs authority, in the circumstances at issue in the main proceedings, is binding and not subject to review by the customs authority competent to issue a retrospective customs declaration within the meaning of the first provision?

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

1

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

2

---