# C_2004118EN.01002701.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/27

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

(Third Chamber)

of 30 April 2004

in Case C-446/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Gouralnik & Partner GmbH (1)

1

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Export refunds - Inaccurate declaration - Consequential effects on the validity of the declaration)

(2004/C 118/47)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-446/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas and Gouralnik & Partner GmbH – on the interpretation of the legislation applicable to export refunds – the Court of Justice (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 30 April 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | For refunds requested before 1 April 1995, Article 78(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Article 3(5)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, must be interpreted as meaning that an entitlement to an export refund exists at least at the rate of refund applicable to the product actually exported where it is established during a control by the customs authorities that the declared and exported consignment did not consist entirely of the declared product but contained a proportion of another product to which a lower rate of refund applied and the customs authorities adjusted the declaration in accordance with Article 78(3) of the Community Customs Code. |
| --- | --- |

1.

For refunds requested before 1 April 1995, Article 78(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Article 3(5)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, must be interpreted as meaning that an entitlement to an export refund exists at least at the rate of refund applicable to the product actually exported where it is established during a control by the customs authorities that the declared and exported consignment did not consist entirely of the declared product but contained a proportion of another product to which a lower rate of refund applied and the customs authorities adjusted the declaration in accordance with Article 78(3) of the Community Customs Code.

| 2. | For the purposes of the decision, it is not material whether the goods which were the subject of the incorrect customs declaration are goods similar to those which were in fact declared. |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the purposes of the decision, it is not material whether the goods which were the subject of the incorrect customs declaration are goods similar to those which were in fact declared.

| 3. | For refunds requested after 1 April 1995, Article 11 of Regulation No 3665/87, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994 amending Regulation No 3665/87 as regards the recovery of amounts unduly paid and sanctions, is applicable in such circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

3.

For refunds requested after 1 April 1995, Article 11 of Regulation No 3665/87, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994 amending Regulation No 3665/87 as regards the recovery of amounts unduly paid and sanctions, is applicable in such circumstances.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 8.3.2003.

1

---