Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2020:802
Date: 2020-10-08
Language of the case: Swedish
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Internal market - Principles;Common customs tariff;Customs Union
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Sweden

Translation C-476/19 — 1 
Case C-421/19 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
19 June 2019 
Referring court: 
Kammarrätten i Göteborg (Sweden) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
19 June 2019 
Appellant: 
Allmänna ombudet hos Tullverket 
Opposing party: 
Combinova AB 
  
COURT 
[...] 
APPELLANT 
Allmänna ombudet hos Tullverket 
OPPOSING PARTY 
Combinova AB [...] 
DECISION UNDER APPEAL 
Judgment of the förvaltningsrätten i Göteborg (Administrative Court, Gothenburg, 
Sweden) of 22 August 2018 in Case No 6776-18 
MATTER 
Customs; now a request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the 
European Union 
EN 
REFERENCE FOR PRELIMINARY RULING OF 19. 6. 2019 — CASE C-476/19 
 
2  
[...] 
The kammarrätten (Administrative Court of Appeal) makes the following 
ORDER 
A preliminary ruling shall be requested from the Court of Justice of the European 
Union under Article 267 TFEU in accordance with the attached reference for a 
preliminary ruling (attachment to the minutes). 
[...] 
[Or. 1] 
Annex to the minutes 
Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 [TFEU] concerning the 
interpretation of Article 124(1)(k) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the 
Union Customs Code (‘the Customs Code’) 
Background 
Combinova AB, with authorisation from Tullverket (Swedish Customs), imported 
goods under what is known as the inward processing suspension procedure. The 
material import took place on 23 November 2017 [...]. The goods were re-
exported on 11 December 2017. The period for discharge ended on 23 January 
2018. A bill of discharge should have been submitted within 30 days of the expiry 
of the period for discharge, that is to say by 22 February 2018. On 6 March 2018, 
Tullverket received a bill of discharge from the company. Since the bill of 
discharge was not submitted within the prescribed period, a customs debt was 
incurred under Article 79 of the Customs Code. Tullverket decided to debit 
Combinova AB for customs duties of SEK 121 plus value added tax of SEK 
2 790. 
Combinova AB appealed against Tullverket’s decision. The förvaltningsrätten 
(Administrative Court) took the view that Tullverket’s decision to levy customs 
duty and VAT on the company was correct and that the company had not shown 
that there were any grounds for extinguishing the customs debt. 
Proceedings before the kammarrätten (Administrative Court of Appeal) 
The Allmänna ombudet hos Tullverket (General representative of Swedish 
Customs; ‘AOT’) has appealed against the judgment of the förvaltningsrätten 
(Administrative Court) and claims that the customs debt should be extinguished in 
ALLMÄNNA OMBUDET HOS TULLVERKET 
 
3 
accordance with Chapter 6, Paragraph 15, of the tullagen (2016:253) (Law on 
customs (2016: 253); ‘the TL’). The AOT states as follows. 
It follows from Article 79(2)(a) of the Customs Code that the time at which the 
customs debt was incurred was the latest moment at which the bill of discharge 
submitted late should have been submitted, which was 22 February 2018. The 
customs debt therefore arose at the end of that day, since at that time the bill of 
discharge had not been submitted. At that time, the goods had [Or. 2] already 
been removed from the EU customs area, as the goods were re-exported on 
11 December 2017. There was thus no use of the goods at the time at which the 
customs debt arose or thereafter. Use prior to the time at which the customs debt 
arose was not connected to that customs debt being incurred. The use was also in 
accordance with the processing authorised in the authorisation granted by 
Tullverket. There are no indications whatsoever that Combinova AB attempted to 
commit fraud. In those circumstances, it should not be possible to take the view 
that the goods have been used in such a way as could prevent the customs debt 
being extinguished in accordance with Article 124(1)(k). 
It is clear from Chapter 6, Paragraph 13, of the TL that when the AOT appeals 
against a decision, the public’s case is pleaded by the AOT and not by Tullverket. 
Tullverket has nevertheless been given the opportunity to comment on the case 
and states as follows. 
Tullverket does not claim that the goods have been consumed. The question is 
whether the goods have been used. The meaning of the term ‘usedʼ is not set out 
in the customs legislation. The term can be understood in two ways. It may be 
either that the product has been used in the way it is intended to be used or that it 
has been used in some way. On the latter interpretation, the product will be 
deemed to be used if it is processed. 
A basic idea behind the inward processing procedure is that goods are to be 
processed in some way. Under the authorisation for inward processing, the 
company must repair and calibrate various instruments, which, in accordance with 
Article 5(37) of the Customs Code, are processing operations. As is clear from 
Article 256(1) of the Customs Code, under the inward processing procedure non-
Union goods may be used. In its judgment of 31 October 2018 in Case No 103-18, 
the kammarrätten i Jönköping (Administrative Court of Appeal, Jönköping) held 
that a work of art which has been exhibited has been used within the meaning of 
Article 124(1)(k) of the Customs Code. In light of Article 256 of the Customs 
Code, use of the expression may be deemed to mean that the goods are processed 
in some way. It has not been alleged that the goods in this case have not been 
processed during the procedure. There is therefore no ground on which the 
customs debt can be extinguished in accordance with that article. 
[Or. 3] 
REFERENCE FOR PRELIMINARY RULING OF 19. 6. 2019 — CASE C-476/19 
 
4  
The need for a preliminary ruling 
The term ‘use’ appears in several places in the Customs Code. Article 256 
provides that, under the inward processing procedure, non-Union goods may be 
used in the customs territory of the Union in one or more processing operations 
without the goods being subject, inter alia, to import duties. 
In this case, the meaning given to the term ‘used’ in Article 124(1)(k) of the 
Customs Code is of decisive importance. In addition, it is important, as a matter of 
principle, to define when that provision is applicable. 
The kammarrätten (Court of Appeal) requests, against the background set out 
above, an answer to the following question. 
A customs debt on importation or exportation incurred under Article 79 is to be 
extinguished in accordance with Article 124(1)(k) if there is sufficient evidence to 
the satisfaction of the customs authorities that the goods have not been used or 
consumed and have been removed from the customs territory of the Union. Does 
the term ‘used’ mean that goods have been processed or refined for the purpose 
for which authorisation was granted to a company for those goods, or does the 
term concern a use which goes beyond that processing or refining? Is it relevant 
whether the use takes place before or after the customs debt arose?