Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2025:334
Date: 2025-05-08
Language of the case: Greek

Summary C-72/24 – 1 
Case C-72/24 [Keladis I] i 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
30 January 2024 
Referring court: 
Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis (Greece) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
30 November 2023 
Appellant:  
HF 
Respondent:  
Anexartiti Archi Dimosion Esodon 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Action for annulment of the notices of assessment by which the appellant was 
declared jointly liable for smuggling offences, and which imposed on him 
increased taxes for those offences, declared him jointly and severally liable for the 
payment of the total amount of those increased taxes and charged to him, jointly 
and severally with the other co-authors of the offence, the amount of value added 
tax (VAT) evaded in each import declaration. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Duty – Value added tax (VAT) – Customs 
value – Declaration of a customs value lower than the real value – Taxable 
amount for VAT – Transaction value – Determination – Method for determining 
the transaction value – Person liable for payment of import VAT 
 
i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-72/24 
 
2  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Are the statistical values referred to as ‘threshold values’/‘fair prices’, which 
are based on Eurostat’s Comext statistical database and are derived from OLAF’s 
information system (Anti-Fraud Information System, ‘AFIS’), of which the 
Automated Monitoring Tool (‘AMT’) is an application, available to the national 
customs authorities through their respective electronic systems? Do they meet the 
requirement of accessibility for all economic operators, as referred to in the 
judgment of 9 June 2022, Fawkes Kft., C-187/21? Do they contain solely 
aggregated data, as defined in Regulations Nos 471/2009 and 113/2010 on 
Community statistics relating to external trade with non-Member States, as in 
force at the relevant time? 
2. In the context of ex post controls in which it is not possible to physically 
check the imported goods, may those statistical values in the Comext database, if 
regarded as generally accessible and as not containing aggregated data only, be 
used by the national customs authorities solely in order to substantiate their 
reasonable doubts as to whether the value declared in the declarations represents 
the transaction value, that is to say, the amount actually paid or payable for those 
goods, or may they also be used to determine the customs value of the goods, in 
accordance with the alternative method referred to in Article 30(2)(c) of the 
Community Customs Code (Regulation No 2913/[92]) [corresponding to 
Article 7[4](2)(c) of the Union Customs Code (Regulation No 952/2013); 
‘deductive method’] or possibly another alternative method? How does the fact 
that it cannot be established that identical or similar goods are involved in 
transactions at the relevant time, as defined in Article 152(1) of Regulation (EEC) 
No 2454/93 (the implementing regulation), affect the answer to that question? 
3. In any event, is the use of those statistical values to determine the customs 
value of certain imported goods, which is equivalent to the application of 
minimum values, consistent with the obligations arising under the World Trade 
Organization (WTO) International Agreement on the Determination of Customs 
Valuation, otherwise known as the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII 
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, to which the European 
Union is a party, in view of the fact that that agreement expressly prohibits the use 
of minimum values? 
4. In relation to the previous question, is the reservation in favour of the 
principles and general provisions of the aforementioned International Agreement 
on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
1994, laid down in Article 31(1) of the Community Customs Code (Regulation 
No 2913/[92]) concerning the fall-back method for determining the customs value 
and, accordingly, the exclusion of the application of minimum values laid down in 
Article 31(2) [which does not appear in the corresponding provision of 
Article 74(3) of the Union Customs Code (Regulation No 952/2013)], valid only 
where that method is applied or does it govern all the alternative methods for 
determining customs value? 
KELADIS I 
 
3 
5. Where it is established that simplification through the grouping of headings, 
within the meaning of Article 81 of the Community Customs Code (Regulation 
No 2913/92) [now Article 177 of the Union Customs Code (Regulation 
No 952/2013)], was used on importation, is it possible to apply the alternative 
method set out in Article 30(2)(c) of the Community Customs Code (Regulation 
No 2913/1992) [corresponding to Article 70(2)(c) [Article 70(2)] of the Union 
Customs Code (Regulation No 952/2013)], irrespective of the disparity between 
the goods declared under the same TARIC code in the same declaration and the 
value fictitiously established as a result for those goods not belonging to that tariff 
classification code? 
6. Finally, irrespective of the preceding questions, are the provisions in the 
Greek legislation concerning the determination of the persons liable for payment 
of import VAT sufficiently clear, pursuant to the requirements of EU law, in so far 
as they designate the ‘deemed owner of the imported goods’ as the person liable? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Council Decision 87/369/EEC of 7 April 1987 concerning the conclusion of the 
International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding 
System and of the Protocol of Amendment thereto (OJ 1987 L 198, p. 1) 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical 
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1): 
Article 3(1) and Annex I 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the 
Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1: recital 6, Article 4(10), 
Article 29(1), Articles 30, 31, 59, 62, 63, 68, 74, 78, 79, 81, 201, 213, 
Article 220(2) and Article 221(3) and (4) (‘the CCC’) 
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): Article 19(1), 
Article 142(1), Articles 150, 151, 152 and 181a 
Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on 
behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of 
the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-
1994) (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 1), pursuant to which the European Community also 
concluded the ‘Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994’ (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 119) 
Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 of 13 March 1997 on mutual assistance 
between the administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation 
between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the law 
on customs and agricultural matters (OJ 1997 L 82, p. 1): Articles 23 and 24 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-72/24 
 
4  
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of 
value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1: recitals 43 and 44 and Article 2(1), 
Articles 30, 70, 85, 201 and 211 
Regulation (EC) No 471/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
6 May 2009 on Community statistics relating to external trade with non-member 
countries and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1172/95 (OJ 2009 L 152, 
p. 23): Article 3(1), Article 4(1), Article 5(1), Articles 6 and 8 
Commission Regulation (EU) No 113/2010 of 9 February 2010 implementing 
Regulation (EC) No 471/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
Community statistics relating to external trade with non-member countries, as 
regards trade coverage, definition of the data, compilation of statistics on trade by 
business characteristics and by invoicing currency, and specific goods or 
movements (OJ 2010 L 37, p. 1): Article 4(1) and (2) 
Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (recast) (OJ 2013 L 269, 
p. 1): Articles 71, 72, 74 and 177 (‘the UCC’) 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 
laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation 
(EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the 
Union Customs Code (OJ 2015 L 343, p. 558): Article 222 
Judgments of the Court of Justice of 28 February 2008, Carboni e derivati 
(C-263/06, EU:C:2008:128); of 29 July 2010, Pakora Pluss (C-248/09, 
EU:C:2010:457); of 12 December 2013, Christodoulou and Others (C-116/12, 
EU:C:2013:825); of 16 June 2016, EURO 2004. Hungary (C-291/15, 
EU:C:2016:455); of 9 March 2017, GE Healthcare (C-173/15, EU:C:2017:195); 
of 9 November 2017, LS Customs Services (C-46/16, EU:C:2017:839); of 
20 December 2017, Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland (C-529/16, 
EU:C:2017:984); of 20 June 2019, Oribalt Rīga (C-1/18, EU:C:2019:519); of 
10 July 2019, Federal Express Corporation Deutsche Niederlassung (C-26/18, 
EU:C:2019:579); of 19 December 2019, Amoena (C-677/18, EU:C:2019:1142); of 
18 June 2020, Hydro Energo (C-340/19, EU:C:2020:488); of 9 July 2020, 
Direktor na Teritorialna direktsiya Yugozapadna Agentsiya ‘Mitnitsi’ (C-76/19, 
EU:C:2020:543); of 19 November 2020, 5th AVENUE (C-775/19, 
EU:C:2020:948); of 3 March 2021, Hauptzollamt Münster (Place where VAT is 
incurred) (C-7/20, EU:C:2021:161); of 22 April 2021, Lifosa (C-75/20, 
EU:C:2021:320); of 8 March 2022, Commission v United Kingdom (Action to 
counter undervaluation fraud) (C-213/19, EU:C:2022:167), of 12 May 2022, U.I. 
(Indirect customs representative) (C-714/20, EU:C:2022:374), of 9 June 2022, 
Baltic Master (C-599/20, EU:C:2022:457); and of 9 June 2022, FAWKES 
(C-187/21, EU:C:2022:458) 
KELADIS I 
 
5 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Nomos 2859/2000, Kyrosi Kodika Forou Prostithemenis Axias (Law 2859/2000, 
Codification of the Value Added Tax Code) (FEK A’ 248/A/7.11.2000): 
Article 1, Article 2(1) and Article 20(1) 
Article 35(3): ‘For the import of goods, the person liable to pay tax is the person 
deemed to be the owner of the imported goods, in accordance with the provisions 
of the customs legislation.’ 
Nomos 2960/2001, Ethnikos teloneiakos kodikas (Law 2960/2001, National 
customs code) (FEK A’ 265/A/22.11.2001): 
Article 1(1), Article 28(1) and (2),  
Article 29(6): ‘The person liable for payment of the customs debt is the declarant, 
the person in whose name a declaration of excise duty and other taxes is lodged, 
and any other person against whom the debt is incurred under the provisions of the 
customs legislation …’.  
Article 31, Article 33(1), Article 142  
Article 150: ‘1. Pursuant to Article 142(2) of the present Code and depending on 
the degree of participation of each person, and irrespective of any criminal 
prosecution brought against them, an increased tax of three to five times the 
amount of the customs duties corresponding to the subject matter of the customs 
offence shall, pursuant to Articles 152, 155 et seq. of the present Code, be 
imposed on each person who has participated in the offence in any way, jointly 
and severally, for all the participants. To that end, the customs duties shall be 
calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Community Customs Code 
and the relevant national provisions on incurring a customs debt. In the case 
of …undervaluation, the basis for the imposition of the aforementioned increased 
tax shall be the difference between the customs duties resulting from the value 
obtained at the time of customs clearance and the current transaction value. Where 
three times the amount of the duties and other taxes corresponding to the goods 
smuggled is less than one thousand five hundred euros (EUR 1 500), the fine shall 
be fixed at that amount in respect of excise goods and at half that amount in 
respect of other goods … Duties, taxes and other charges for which payment has 
been evaded, notwithstanding the fact that a customs debt has been legally 
incurred, may be charged separately by means of a reasoned notice of 
assessment. … 5. The notice of assessment issued shall be independent both of 
any parallel legal prosecution for a criminal offence and any judgment issued 
subsequently in criminal proceedings.’ 
Article 155 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-72/24 
 
6  
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The appellant is the owner of a clothing undertaking who, in the course of his 
commercial activity, purchased clothing imported from Turkey by a clothing 
importer.  
2 In 2014, the clothing importer in question had established, as sole proprietor, a 
wholesale clothing undertaking with its headquarters in Thessaloniki. By the end 
of 2016, the undertaking had lodged hundreds of import declarations with a 
declared value of goods of around EUR 6 000 000. In 2016, the undertaking was 
subject to an audit by the customs authority following a complaint concerning the 
undervaluation of imported goods. 
3 The audit revealed irregularities in the operation of the undertaking and the 
imports made by it. It was found, inter alia, that the alleged importer was an 
employee of another clothing retailer. Furthermore, the goods on which physical 
checks were conducted were found to correspond, in terms of quantity, to the 
figures given in each import declaration, but varied in quality, composition, size 
and design, as well as in value, from the declarations made. The value declared 
did not correspond to the import invoices attached to the declarations, the declared 
values being, according to the inspectors, manifestly lower than the actual values. 
4 Following the control, the customs authority concluded that the undertaking was 
owned by the importer in name only, whereas the real operator was the 
aforementioned clothing trader. According to the inspection authorities, the 
smuggling ring operated as follows: economic operators interested in importing 
clothing from Turkey initially went to that country and made contacts with 
suppliers, whom they paid in cash. The agreement stipulated that the goods would 
not be exported directly by the seller, but would be delivered to a transport 
company which would undertake the transport to Greece. The goods were 
packaged in such a way as to mislead the Greek customs authorities as to their 
quality and value. For the customs clearance of the goods, another Turkish 
company issued an invoice with inaccurate values (constituting an 
undervaluation); the invoice included all the goods and listed the undertaking as 
the purchaser. The goods were described in general terms in the invoice in 
question, but the values shown were much lower than the prices actually paid by 
the Greek economic operators to the real Turkish suppliers.  
5 After customs clearance, the goods were transported by another transport 
company to the actual purchasers throughout Greece. The fee for the transport 
from Turkey was paid by the final consignees in cash without a tax invoice being 
issued, while the VAT corresponding to the invoice issued by the undertaking was 
also paid in cash. The values indicated on the invoices for domestic sales were 
slightly higher than those declared on importation, while the quantities indicated 
on the majority of the invoices were inaccurate, since the majority of the 
consignees did not want the invoices to reflect the actual quantity received.  
KELADIS I 
 
7 
6 The Thessaloniki customs office determined that the total amount of tax and other 
charges evaded by almost all of the undertaking’s imports was EUR 6 211 300.19.  
7 In particular, it was found that in 2014 the appellant knowingly ordered, 
purchased, imported and received, together with the other main partners in the 
importer’s undertaking, goods that had been undervalued, imported under nine 
declarations to which invoices containing inaccurate values for the goods had 
been attached . The appellant admitted that he had conducted the relevant 
transactions with the importer’s undertaking, but denied that the goods had been 
undervalued and disputed the way in which the customs value of the goods had 
been calculated. 
8 However, the customs authority took the view that all those involved as described 
above in the smuggling ring and the appellant, as the final consignee and 
purchaser of the goods, engaged, in concert, in intentionally carrying out the 
constituent elements of the offence of smuggling, consisting in undervaluing the 
goods on importation and in the possession of those goods which were released 
for consumption.  
9 That led to the adoption of the notices of assessment contested by the appellant. 
Each notice stated that both the appellant, as the final consignee of the goods in 
each declaration and the actual importer, as well as the persons associated with the 
undertaking’s activities, were guilty of the offence of smuggling. It was 
considered that they had acted in concert and colluded to deprive the Greek State 
of the tax charges levied on the goods imported from abroad, thereby evading 
payment of the relevant VAT and obtaining the corresponding direct financial 
benefit.  
10 On the basis of the foregoing, the value of the goods imported under each 
declaration was reassessed and the amount of VAT evaded per importer and per 
declaration was calculated and charged jointly and severally to all the co-authors 
of the offence. In addition, a penalty consisting in increased taxes amounting to 
three times the amount of VAT evaded was imposed. 
11 On appeal, the appellant was acquitted of the smuggling offence by a final 
judgment in 2021.  
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
12 First of all, the appellant denies any involvement in the alleged smuggling and 
submits that there is no element of undervaluation, whereas the respondent 
contends that the appellant’s allegations should be rejected as unfounded and 
unsubstantiated. 
13 The appellant further submits that the referring court is bound by his acquittal, by 
final judgment, of the offence of smuggling. On the other hand, the respondent 
submits that the binding effect of the aforementioned final judgment of acquittal 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-72/24 
 
8  
with regard to the referring court is limited to the issue of smuggling and the 
increased taxes imposed as a result, maintaining that the part of the judgment 
charging the corresponding VAT on the goods covered by the declarations at issue 
is not binding on the referring court. 
14 Furthermore, the appellant submits that the customs authority wrongly determined 
a posteriori the customs value of the goods at issue. Since the goods in each 
declaration were different (with different TARICs), the appellant submits that the 
customs authority unlawfully took into account the value of the goods under the 
TARIC code of the highest tariff heading as declared by the importer in the 
context of simplification through the grouping of headings. He claims that the 
simplification procedure was followed in a few cases only. 
15 Furthermore, according to the appellant, the customs authority wrongly claims 
that it took into account the price of the goods representing the largest quantity in 
the declaration or the prices at which the products in question were sold during the 
same period. However, the appellant argues that the value taken into account was 
that of goods unrelated to those imported under the declarations at issue, and that 
he himself did not even trade in such goods. 
16 In addition, the appellant maintains that the ‘fair prices’/‘threshold values’ 
method, based on data extracted from the electronic database, the Community 
AFIS system and AMT, does not fall within any of the methods for calculating the 
customs value set out exhaustively in the Union Customs Code, is arbitrary and, 
therefore, that it was not lawful to use it. Such values may only be used as a basis 
for challenging the declared value and not in order to determine the customs 
value. 
17 In particular, the appellant alleges that, at the time when the declarations at issue 
were submitted, in 2014, the ‘fair prices’ used were not even applicable. Even if it 
were considered legitimate to use those prices for the purposes of determining the 
customs value, it was not legitimate, in the present case, to use the prices of the 
goods with the highest tariff heading for all the goods imported under the 
declarations at issue. Moreover, the appellant submits that such an approach 
resulted in significant variations in the price of the same product in different 
declarations. 
18 Consequently, according to the appellant, first, the customs value was determined 
in the present case on the basis of the TARIC codes in an unlawful manner and, 
second, in any event, no specific reasons were given for not using the transaction 
value or other alternative methods or for the method of calculating the customs 
value of the goods on importation.  
19 According to the respondent, simplification through the grouping of headings was 
applied across the board to all the declarations at issue. It contends, moreover, that 
the customs value was not determined arbitrarily, but was based on the unit price 
method which was applied using a minimum tariff rate established on the basis of 
KELADIS I 
 
9 
50% of the fair price per kilogram of goods (and not per unit), obtained from the 
AMT electronic system using AFIS MAB. 
20 Furthermore, the respondent maintains that the use of simplification through the 
grouping of headings does not preclude the application of the aforementioned 
method of determining the customs value. The reason why that method was 
applied is that, in the present case, the transaction value method for identical or 
similar goods could not be applied, first, on account of the incomplete description 
of each product in the relevant invoices and, second, because it was impossible to 
physically check them, as they had escaped seizure. However, even if it could be 
applied, that method would, in the respondent’s view, lead to the determination of 
a higher value. With regard to the significant discrepancies between the various 
declarations for the value of the same product, the respondent contends that this is 
due, first, to the fact that the customs value is calculated per unit and not per 
kilogram, as is the case with threshold values and, second, to the tariff heading, 
under which they were grouped together, being considered as a single product. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
21 The referring court considers, as a preliminary point, that although it is not bound 
by the aforementioned acquittal judgment as regards charging the appellant for the 
import VAT evaded it must, however, in accordance with the presumption of 
innocence, take that judgment into account in relation to the pleas alleging that the 
appellant was not aware that the imported goods at issue had been undervalued.  
22 Further, the referring court considers that the determination of whether or not the 
customs authorities acted lawfully in establishing the undervaluation must, 
logically, precede the assessment of whether or not the appellant was aware of that 
undervaluation. That is because the question relates to the constituent elements of 
the alleged infringement, which concerns the question of whether the price 
actually agreed and paid, on which the duties and other taxes are calculated, was, 
in the present case, higher than that declared and shown on the invoices presented 
at the time of customs clearance. The referring court therefore focuses on 
examining the merits of the plea in law concerning the incorrect determination of 
the customs value by the customs authority. 
23 In the light of the provisions of European customs law governing the question of 
the method for determining the customs value, the existing case-law of the Court 
of Justice on the calculation of the customs value of imported goods in the context 
of the possibility of using ‘statistical values’, and the integration of the relevant 
provisions of the CCC (now the UCC) into a broader framework of international 
legal rules and the corresponding obligations of the European Union, the referring 
court finds that the use of ‘statistical values’ in the formation of ‘fair prices’ and 
‘threshold values’ is not unprecedented. The purpose of such use is to assist the 
competent national customs authorities, on the one hand, in detecting cases of 
fraud and evasion of duties and taxes on imports through the undervaluation and, 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-72/24 
 
10  
on the other hand, and by extension, in determining the customs value of imported 
goods.  
24 In addition to the national statistical databases, there are also corresponding 
European databases, such as the Customs Information System under Regulation 
No 515/97 and Comext (managed by Eurostat), the data from which is fed into 
OLAF’s Anti-Fraud Information System (AFIS), of which the Automated 
Monitoring Tool (AMT) is an application.  
25 The national customs authorities have access to the above data through their own 
information systems, but the same does not apply to all economic operators. 
Furthermore, the statistical databases governed by Regulations Nos 471/2009, 
1172/1995 and 113/2010 in principle contain aggregate data, which do not take 
into account the particular characteristics of the goods or the commercial level of 
sales, even though the determination of the statistical value is subject to an express 
reservation in favour of the application of the general principles laid down in the 
Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade (WTO Agreement on the Determination of Customs Valuation), 
excluding arbitrary or fictitious values.  
26 In view of the foregoing, according to the referring court, ‘statistical values’ in the 
form of ‘fair prices’ may undoubtedly be used by the customs authorities in order 
to establish reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the declared transaction value, 
in conjunction with the other control verifications carried out by the customs 
control bodies. It should be noted in that regard that such ‘statistical values’ may 
be used by the European Union to determine the deficit in making ‘own resources’ 
available by Member States that do not conduct effective fraud detection checks 
(judgment of 8 March 2022, Commission v United Kingdom, C-213/19, 
ECLI:EU:C:2022:167). 
27 However, given that the aforementioned judgment of the Court of Justice (see, by 
way of example, paragraph 412) also refers to the exclusive competence of the 
Member States to determine the customs value as the basis for calculating customs 
duties in accordance with the successive methods provided for in the CCC (and 
now in the UCC) and to the non-binding nature of the available risk criterion, the 
referring court has reasonable doubts as to whether those average statistical values 
(‘threshold values’) may be used as such for the purpose of determining the 
customs value of goods. 
28 Moreover, doubts also arise as to whether the use of those values can specifically 
be included in the alternative method under Article 30(2)(c) of the [CCC], which, 
in accordance with the practice of the Greek customs authorities, was applied in 
the present case, despite the fact that that method also refers to ‘identical’ and 
‘similar’ goods. Furthermore, it does not appear that the time frame to which the 
values in question refer is within the time limits laid down in Article 152(1)(b) of 
Regulation No 2454/1993. 
KELADIS I 
 
11 
29 The referring court’s doubts are exacerbated by the fact that the exclusive use of 
the aforementioned values essentially leads to the customs value being determined 
on the basis of minimum values, which are by definition fictitious, running 
counter to the philosophy of determining the customs value prevailing in 
international trade. Furthermore, the referring court’s doubts as to the correct 
interpretation and application of the applicable rules of EU law are compounded 
by the specific nature of the imports at issue, which were made using the 
procedure provided for in Article 81 of the CCC (now Article 177 of the UCC), 
consisting in the declaration of a single common TARIC code, namely the one 
under which the goods are subject to the highest rate of customs duty, in respect of 
all the goods in the same declaration falling within different codes.  
30 In view of those doubts as to the interpretation and application of the relevant 
provisions of the CCC and Regulation No 2454/93, together with the wider 
importance of resolving those issues of interpretation, since they arise in a large 
number of similar cases already pending before the Greek courts, the referring 
court considers that it must defer its final judgment and refer the first five 
questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. 
31 Finally, in so far as the present case concerns the charging of VAT (only) (as it 
concerns goods imported from Turkey into Greece, to which no customs duties 
are applicable) to the final consignee of the goods in question, the referring court, 
taking into account the fact that each Member State is to determine the person or 
persons designated or recognised as liable to pay VAT, provided that the national 
provisions are sufficiently clear and precise and in accordance with the principle 
of legal certainty, harbours doubts as to whether the provisions of Law 2859/2000 
and Law 2960/2001 satisfy that condition and concludes that it is necessary to 
refer the sixth question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.