# C_2008327EN.01000302.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Trespa International B.V. v Nova Haven- en Vervoerbedrijf N.V.

(Case C-248/07) (1)

1

(Regulation implementing the Community Customs Code - Articles 291 and 297 - Favourable tariff treatment - End-use - Concept of ‘person importing the goods or having them imported for free circulation’ - Concept of ‘transfer of goods within the Community’ - Concept of ‘transferee’)

(2008/C 327/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Trespa International B.V.

Applicant:

Defendant: Nova Haven- en Vervoerbedrijf N.V.

Defendant:

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Articles 1a, 291 and 297 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Concepts of ‘transfer of goods within the Community’, ‘person importing the goods or having them imported for free circulation’ and ‘transferee’.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 291(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation No 89/97 of 20 January 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘person importing the goods or having them imported for free circulation’ contained therein refers to the person for whom the goods are destined and who intends to assign them to the prescribed end-use, irrespective of whether he makes the customs declaration himself or has that done by a representative within the meaning of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code. That concept does not refer to the representative of that person before the customs authorities, disregarding those cases in which that person is deemed to act in his own name and on his own behalf pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Regulation No 2913/92 and who must therefore be considered an importer. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 291(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation No 89/97 of 20 January 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘person importing the goods or having them imported for free circulation’ contained therein refers to the person for whom the goods are destined and who intends to assign them to the prescribed end-use, irrespective of whether he makes the customs declaration himself or has that done by a representative within the meaning of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code. That concept does not refer to the representative of that person before the customs authorities, disregarding those cases in which that person is deemed to act in his own name and on his own behalf pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Regulation No 2913/92 and who must therefore be considered an importer.

| 2. | Article 297(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 89/97, must be interpreted as meaning that there has been no transfer of goods within the Community in a situation where goods are imported into Belgium then transported to the Netherlands, if the person authorised acts on behalf of the ultimate importer, which is for the national court to ascertain. The mere fact that the goods were imported into and cleared through customs in Belgium then transported to the Netherlands is irrelevant to the establishment of the existence of a transfer within the meaning of that provision. Where goods are transferred, the transferee must hold an authorisation issued in accordance with Article 291 of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 297(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 89/97, must be interpreted as meaning that there has been no transfer of goods within the Community in a situation where goods are imported into Belgium then transported to the Netherlands, if the person authorised acts on behalf of the ultimate importer, which is for the national court to ascertain. The mere fact that the goods were imported into and cleared through customs in Belgium then transported to the Netherlands is irrelevant to the establishment of the existence of a transfer within the meaning of that provision. Where goods are transferred, the transferee must hold an authorisation issued in accordance with Article 291 of that regulation.

| 3. | Article 297(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 89/97, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘transferee’ contained therein does not refer to a customs agent who carries out customs formalities on behalf of the importer. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 297(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 89/97, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘transferee’ contained therein does not refer to a customs agent who carries out customs formalities on behalf of the importer.

---

(1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.

1

---