# C_2020433EN.01003402.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/34

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 2 October 2020 — UB v Kauno teritorinė muitinė

(Case C-489/20)

(2020/C 433/43)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: UB

Respondent: Kauno teritorinė muitinė

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 124(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that a customs debt is extinguished where, in a situation such as that in the present case, smuggled goods were seized and subsequently confiscated after they had already been unlawfully introduced (released for consumption) into the customs territory of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 124(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that a customs debt is extinguished where, in a situation such as that in the present case, smuggled goods were seized and subsequently confiscated after they had already been unlawfully introduced (released for consumption) into the customs territory of the European Union?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, are Articles 2(b) and 7(1) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (2) of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC and Articles 2(1)(d) and 70 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (3) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to pay excise duty and/or VAT is not extinguished where, as in the present case, smuggled goods are seized and subsequently confiscated after they have already been unlawfully introduced (released for consumption) into the customs territory of the European Union, even if the customs debt has been extinguished on the ground provided for in Article 124(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, are Articles 2(b) and 7(1) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (2) of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC and Articles 2(1)(d) and 70 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (3) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to pay excise duty and/or VAT is not extinguished where, as in the present case, smuggled goods are seized and subsequently confiscated after they have already been unlawfully introduced (released for consumption) into the customs territory of the European Union, even if the customs debt has been extinguished on the ground provided for in Article 124(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12.

(3)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---