# C_2004228EN.01002702.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/27

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by order of that court of 14 June 2004 in the case of Beemsterboer Coldstore Services BV against Douanedistrict Arnhem

(Case C-293/04)

(2004/C 228/56)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) of 14 June 2004 received at the Court Registry on 9 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Beemsterboer Coldstore Services BV against Douanedistrict Arnhem on the following questions:

| 1. | Is the new text of Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code (CCC) (1) applicable to a case in which the customs debt was incurred and post-clearance recovery undertaken before the provision entered into force? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the new text of Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code (CCC) (1) applicable to a case in which the customs debt was incurred and post-clearance recovery undertaken before the provision entered into force?

1

| 2. | If question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is a EUR.1 certificate which cannot be shown actually to be incorrect because the origin of the goods for which the certificate was issued could not be ascertained upon subsequent verification, the goods being denied preferential treatment solely for that reason, an ‘incorrect certificate’ within the meaning of the new text of Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC and, if such is not the case, can an interested party still usefully appeal against this provision? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is a EUR.1 certificate which cannot be shown actually to be incorrect because the origin of the goods for which the certificate was issued could not be ascertained upon subsequent verification, the goods being denied preferential treatment solely for that reason, an ‘incorrect certificate’ within the meaning of the new text of Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC and, if such is not the case, can an interested party still usefully appeal against this provision?

| 3. | If question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Who bears the burden of proving that the certificate is based on an incorrect account of the facts provided by the exporter or alternatively who must prove that evidently the issuing authorities were aware or should have been aware that the goods did not satisfy the conditions laid down for entitlement to the preferential treatment? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Who bears the burden of proving that the certificate is based on an incorrect account of the facts provided by the exporter or alternatively who must prove that evidently the issuing authorities were aware or should have been aware that the goods did not satisfy the conditions laid down for entitlement to the preferential treatment?

| 4. | If question 1 is answered in the negative: Can an interested party usefully appeal against Article 220(2) of the CCC, introduction and indent (b), as this provision read prior to 19 December 2000, in a situation in which it cannot subsequently be ascertained whether, at the time of issue, the customs authorities had good grounds for issuing a EUR.1 certificate and were right to issue one? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If question 1 is answered in the negative: Can an interested party usefully appeal against Article 220(2) of the CCC, introduction and indent (b), as this provision read prior to 19 December 2000, in a situation in which it cannot subsequently be ascertained whether, at the time of issue, the customs authorities had good grounds for issuing a EUR.1 certificate and were right to issue one?

---

(1)   OJ L 311 of 12.12.2000, p. 17.

1

---