# C_2023304EN.01001201.xml

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 15 June 2023 — SIA BALTIC CONTAINER TERMINAL v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-376/23, BALTIC CONTAINER TERMINAL)

(2023/C 304/15)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant in cassation: SIA BALTIC CONTAINER TERMINAL

Defendant and respondent in cassation: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Questions referred

| 1. | Under Article 178(1)(b) and (c) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446, (1) in conjunction with Article 214(1) of the Union Customs Code, (2) is it possible to discharge the ‘free zone’ special procedure without having included in the electronic records system the master reference number (MRN) which identifies the customs declaration by which the goods are placed under the subsequent customs procedure? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Under Article 178(1)(b) and (c) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446, (1) in conjunction with Article 214(1) of the Union Customs Code, (2) is it possible to discharge the ‘free zone’ special procedure without having included in the electronic records system the master reference number (MRN) which identifies the customs declaration by which the goods are placed under the subsequent customs procedure?

| 2. | Under Articles 214(1) and 215(1) of the Union Customs Code and Article 178(1)(b) and (c) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446, is it possible for the holder of the ‘free zone’ special procedure to discharge that procedure relying solely on a note concerning the customs status of the goods made by a customs authority official on the transport document for the goods (CMR), without checking for itself the validity of the customs status of those goods? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Under Articles 214(1) and 215(1) of the Union Customs Code and Article 178(1)(b) and (c) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446, is it possible for the holder of the ‘free zone’ special procedure to discharge that procedure relying solely on a note concerning the customs status of the goods made by a customs authority official on the transport document for the goods (CMR), without checking for itself the validity of the customs status of those goods?

| 3. | If the answer to question 2 is negative, what level of verification in accordance with Articles 214(1) and 215(1) of the Union Customs Code and Article 178(1)(b) and (c) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446 is sufficient in order to consider the ‘free zone’ special procedure to have been correctly discharged? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to question 2 is negative, what level of verification in accordance with Articles 214(1) and 215(1) of the Union Customs Code and Article 178(1)(b) and (c) of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446 is sufficient in order to consider the ‘free zone’ special procedure to have been correctly discharged?

| 4. | Was the holder of the ‘free zone’ special procedure entitled to have a legitimate expectation as a result of the confirmation by the customs authorities that the customs status of the goods had changed from ‘non-Union goods’ to ‘Union goods’, even though that confirmation did not indicate the reason for that change of status of the goods or any information which allowed that reason to be verified? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Was the holder of the ‘free zone’ special procedure entitled to have a legitimate expectation as a result of the confirmation by the customs authorities that the customs status of the goods had changed from ‘non-Union goods’ to ‘Union goods’, even though that confirmation did not indicate the reason for that change of status of the goods or any information which allowed that reason to be verified?

| 5. | If the answer to question 4 is negative, may the fact that, in other proceedings brought before a national court, it was ruled, by final judgment, that, in accordance with the procedures laid down by the customs authorities, the holder of the customs procedure had not committed any infringement with regard to the ‘free zone’ customs procedure constitute a ground for exemption from the customs debt arising under Article 79(1)(a) and 3(a) of the Union Customs Code, in the light of the principle of res judicata laid down in national law and EU law? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the answer to question 4 is negative, may the fact that, in other proceedings brought before a national court, it was ruled, by final judgment, that, in accordance with the procedures laid down by the customs authorities, the holder of the customs procedure had not committed any infringement with regard to the ‘free zone’ customs procedure constitute a ground for exemption from the customs debt arising under Article 79(1)(a) and 3(a) of the Union Customs Code, in the light of the principle of res judicata laid down in national law and EU law?

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code (OJ 2015 L 343, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).

---