Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2017:778
Date: 2017-10-19
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Customs Union
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 19 October 2017 1. Customs union — Arising of a customs debt on the importation linked with release into free circulation of goods — Concept of a ‘debtor’ — Person who provided the information required to draw up the declaration and who knew that such information was false — Release for free circulation in the European Union of frozen raw chicken meat — Concept of necessary information (Council Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, Art. 201(3), second para.; Commission Regulation No 1484/95, as amended by Regulation No 684/1999, Art. 3(2)) 2. Customs union — Arising of a customs debt on the importation linked with release into free circulation of goods — Concept of a ‘debtor’ — Natural person involved in the artificial set-up of a structure of commercial transactions for the purpose of improperly benefitting from the advantages provided for by EU law — Included — Conditions (Council Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, Art. 201(3), second para.) 3. Customs union — Arising and recovery of a customs debt — Communication of the amounts of the duties to the debtor within a period of three years from the date on which the customs debt was incurred — Exception — Act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings — Meaning — Customs debt on importation incurred through the release for free circulation of goods liable to import duties — Included (Council Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, Art. 201(1) and 221(3) and (4)) 1. In circumstances such as those in the case in the main proceedings, the second subparagraph of Article 201(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 must be interpreted as meaning that documents that are required to be produced by Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 of 28 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 163/67/EEC, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 684/1999 of 29 March 1999, constitute information required to draw up the customs declaration within the meaning of Article 201(3). (see para. 42, operative part 1) 2. Article 201(3) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a ‘debtor’ of the customs debt, within the meaning of that article, covers the natural person who has been closely and knowingly involved in the design and artificial construction of a structure of commercial transactions, such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings, which had the effect of reducing the amount of the import duties legally owed, although that natural person has not himself communicated the false information which had served as the basis for drawing up the customs declaration, where it appears from the facts that that person had or ought reasonably to have known that the transactions concerned by that structure had been carried out not in the ordinary course of trade, but solely for the purpose of improperly benefiting from the advantages provided for by Union law. In that regard it is irrelevant that the person concerned designed and artificially constructed that structure only after he had obtained the guarantee of its lawfulness from customs experts. (see para. 53, operative part 2) 3. Article 221(4) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation 2700/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the case in the main proceedings, the customs debt on importation is incurred, in accordance with Article 201(1) thereof, through the release for free circulation of goods liable to import duties, is not such, in itself, as to exclude the possibility of communicating to the debtor the amount of import duties owed on such goods after the expiry of the period laid down in Article 221(3) of that regulation, as amended. There is nothing to indicate that the Union legislature intended to exclude from the scope of Article 221(4) of the Customs Code acts liable to give rise to criminal court proceedings which prevented all or part of the collection of customs duties in connection with the release for free circulation. A contrary interpretation would be such as to undermine the attainment of the objective of that article, namely to increase the possibilities for recovery of the customs debt. Consequently, it must be stated that, in situations where Article 201 of the Customs Code is applicable, the three-year period laid down in Article 221(3) of the Customs Code may be disregarded if the goods concerned have been unlawfully released for free circulation following a customs declaration being drawn up based on false information, and that fact is liable to give rise to criminal court proceedings. (see paras 59-62, operative part 3)