# C_2008327EN.01001301.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from VAT and Duties Tribunals, London (United Kingdom) made on 29 September 2008 — Terex Equipment Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

(Case C-430/08)

(2008/C 327/22)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

VAT and Duties Tribunals, London (pursuant to a request from the Edinburgh Tribunal Centre)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Terex Equipment Ltd

Applicant:

Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the Code (1), and in particular Article 78, permit revision of the declaration to correct the CPC and if so, are HMRC required to amend the declaration and to regularise the situation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Code (1), and in particular Article 78, permit revision of the declaration to correct the CPC and if so, are HMRC required to amend the declaration and to regularise the situation?

1

| 2. | Were the goods in this case unlawfully removed from customs supervision within the meaning of Article 203(1) of the Code by reason of the operation of Article 865 IR (2)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Were the goods in this case unlawfully removed from customs supervision within the meaning of Article 203(1) of the Code by reason of the operation of Article 865 IR (2)?

2

| 3. | If so, was a customs debt on importation thereby incurred under Article 203 of the Code? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If so, was a customs debt on importation thereby incurred under Article 203 of the Code?

| 4. | Even if there was no customs debt under Article 203 of the Code, has a customs debt arisen by virtue of Article 204 having regard to






  (i) | the findings on ‘obvious negligence’ and |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Even if there was no customs debt under Article 203 of the Code, has a customs debt arisen by virtue of Article 204 having regard to

(i)

the findings on ‘obvious negligence’ and

| (ii) | the question whether HMRC failed to comply with Article 221(3) 45 of the Code by failing to communicate the Article 204 customs debt within the time limit |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

the question whether HMRC failed to comply with Article 221(3) 45 of the Code by failing to communicate the Article 204 customs debt within the time limit

| 5. | Given that:






  (i) | there can be no regularisation under Article 78 of the Code and |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Given that:

(i)

there can be no regularisation under Article 78 of the Code and

| (ii) | there was a customs debt and |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

there was a customs debt and

| (iii) | there was a special situation as contemplated by Article 899 1R, |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

there was a special situation as contemplated by Article 899 1R,

was it open to the Tribunal to conclude that there was no obvious negligence present, so that the customs debt should be remitted under Article 239 of the Code?

---

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

1

(2)  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 L 253, p. 1).

2

2

---