# CE2004084EN.01082001.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/820 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/820

---

(2004/C 84 E/0915)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0615/04

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Role of certificates in rules of origin

Subject:

| 1. | In answer to my written question of 8 May 2003 (E-1590/03 (1)), the Commission says that it ‘(...) does not have any information about problems encountered by business as a result of errors by Member State authorities which issue certificates of origin (...)’.
  Is the Commission aware of the van der Rijken/Hoogerwerff case (application REM 4/2002)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In answer to my written question of 8 May 2003 (E-1590/03 (1)), the Commission says that it ‘(...) does not have any information about problems encountered by business as a result of errors by Member State authorities which issue certificates of origin (...)’.

1

Is the Commission aware of the van der Rijken/Hoogerwerff case (application REM 4/2002)?

| 2. | Does the Commission consider that it is fair and reasonable and consistent with the general principles of sound administration that a trader such as Mr van der Rijken who relies on legally valid certificates of origin issued by a Member State should incur penalties in another Member State as a result of mistakes made by the Member State that issued the original certificate? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission consider that it is fair and reasonable and consistent with the general principles of sound administration that a trader such as Mr van der Rijken who relies on legally valid certificates of origin issued by a Member State should incur penalties in another Member State as a result of mistakes made by the Member State that issued the original certificate?

| 3. | Is the Commission prepared to re-examine in this case, particularly since Mr van der Rijken was acting in good faith and the matter has now been going on for some time? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission prepared to re-examine in this case, particularly since Mr van der Rijken was acting in good faith and the matter has now been going on for some time?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2004)

(25 March 2004)

| 1. | The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that application REM 04/2002 was the subject of a Commission decision of 23 December 2002. It is therefore well aware of this case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that application REM 04/2002 was the subject of a Commission decision of 23 December 2002. It is therefore well aware of this case.

| 2. | One criterion used for applying anti-dumping duties is the origin of the product, which must be established under the Community's non-preferential rules of origin. This differs from preferential origin, where imports of products originating in certain third countries may in some circumstances be eligible for preferential rates of duty.
  The origin of products subject to anti-dumping duties has to be established by the interested party and entered in box 16 of the Single Administrative Document (SAD) submitted on importing the products. As the rules do not expressly provide for the use of certificates of origin it is not possible to use any certificates that may have been presented in support of the import declaration as evidence. It is the interested party's responsibility to provide proof of origin by indicating it on the SAD.
  The customs authorities of the Member State of importation examining the declaration submitted by the interested party may perform any checks they deem necessary in accordance with Article 68 of the Community Customs Code (2). Under Article 220(2)(b) of the Code, post-clearance recovery of duties may be waived in certain conditions, for instance when the person liable for payment has acted in good faith in the case of an error by the competent customs authorities.
  In Mr van der Rijken's case the certificates lodged with the Dutch customs authorities were issued by the Chamber of Commerce of Espoo in Finland which cannot be considered as a competent customs authority within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) as it did not furnish information carrying legal weight and relevant to the recovery of the duties concerned.
  Acceptance of an import declaration does not stop the competent authorities performing post-clearance checks pursuant to Article 78 of the Community Customs Code, and Dutch customs' acceptance of the import declaration cannot be considered an error within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) of the Code. On the contrary it was quite in order for Dutch customs, as they had doubts about the origin declared by the interested party, to verify the origin of the products. The checks, indeed, confirmed that the goods were of Chinese origin. |
| --- | --- |

2.

One criterion used for applying anti-dumping duties is the origin of the product, which must be established under the Community's non-preferential rules of origin. This differs from preferential origin, where imports of products originating in certain third countries may in some circumstances be eligible for preferential rates of duty.

The origin of products subject to anti-dumping duties has to be established by the interested party and entered in box 16 of the Single Administrative Document (SAD) submitted on importing the products. As the rules do not expressly provide for the use of certificates of origin it is not possible to use any certificates that may have been presented in support of the import declaration as evidence. It is the interested party's responsibility to provide proof of origin by indicating it on the SAD.

The customs authorities of the Member State of importation examining the declaration submitted by the interested party may perform any checks they deem necessary in accordance with Article 68 of the Community Customs Code (2). Under Article 220(2)(b) of the Code, post-clearance recovery of duties may be waived in certain conditions, for instance when the person liable for payment has acted in good faith in the case of an error by the competent customs authorities.

2

In Mr van der Rijken's case the certificates lodged with the Dutch customs authorities were issued by the Chamber of Commerce of Espoo in Finland which cannot be considered as a competent customs authority within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) as it did not furnish information carrying legal weight and relevant to the recovery of the duties concerned.

Acceptance of an import declaration does not stop the competent authorities performing post-clearance checks pursuant to Article 78 of the Community Customs Code, and Dutch customs' acceptance of the import declaration cannot be considered an error within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) of the Code. On the contrary it was quite in order for Dutch customs, as they had doubts about the origin declared by the interested party, to verify the origin of the products. The checks, indeed, confirmed that the goods were of Chinese origin.

| 3. | The Commission is not therefore able to re-examine this case, especially as Mr van der Rijken, as already explained, could not use the presentation of origin certificates as evidence. The rules in force do not require such certificates to be presented and Mr van der Rijken was solely responsible for furnishing proof of the goods' origin. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission is not therefore able to re-examine this case, especially as Mr van der Rijken, as already explained, could not use the presentation of origin certificates as evidence. The rules in force do not require such certificates to be presented and Mr van der Rijken was solely responsible for furnishing proof of the goods' origin.

---

(1)  OJ C 111 E, 15.1.2004, p. 201.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, OJ L 302, 19.10.1992.

2

---