Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:845
Date: 2025-10-30
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Spain

Summary C-348/24 – 1 
Case C-348/24 
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: 
9 May 2024 
Referring court: 
Tribunal Supremo – Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo (Spain) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
12 April 2024 
Appellant: 
Compañía de Distribución Integral Logista, S. A. 
Respondent: 
Administración General del Estado 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal on a point of law brought by a distribution company against the 
Administración General del Estado (General State Administration) – Assessment 
notices from the Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria (State Agency 
for Tax Administration; ‘Taxation Agency’) – Records of non-compliance – 
Customs value of goods under a customs warehousing arrangement – Loss of 
tariff preferences applied at the time of release for free circulation – Certificate of 
origin of goods submitted out of time 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
Request for a preliminary ruling on interpretation – Article 267 TFEU – 
Determination of the customs value of imported goods under a customs 
warehousing arrangement – Point in time to be taken into account for the purposes 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-348/24 
 
2  
of that valuation – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Articles 29(1), 76(1)(c), 
112(3) and 214 – Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 – Successive sales – 
Article 147 – Validity of proofs of origin of goods subject to certain special 
arrangements – Articles 97k(5), 97n, 97t(7), and 118 – Period of two years from 
the date of issue or establishment of proofs of origin exceeded where partial 
releases have been made within that period 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. In relation to the customs value, is Article 29 CCC to be interpreted as 
laying down only the method for determining the customs value – the transaction 
value, without prejudice to any upward or downward adjustments that should be 
made – but not as stipulating the time when that valuation should be carried out? 
2. In view of the fact that, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of 
Justice, for the purposes of Article 29 CCC the method for determining the 
customs value on the basis of the transaction value of goods applies where the 
goods were sold for export to the European Union, is Article 29 CCC, in 
conjunction with Articles 112(3) CCC and 214 CCC, to be interpreted as meaning 
that the placing of goods in a customs warehouse using the simplified procedure 
laid down in Article 76(1)(c) CCC entails or permits the presumption that the 
goods were sold for export to the European Union? Is the answer to the previous 
question affected in any way where the goods are released for free circulation 
after the transfer effected while they were in the customs warehouse? 
3. If the answers to those two questions are in the negative, taking into account 
the fact that the customs warehousing arrangement, as a suspensive arrangement, 
does not determine when the customs debt arises, in so far as it arises when the 
goods are released for free circulation, must Articles 29 CCC, 112(3) CCC and 
214 CCC nevertheless be interpreted as meaning that the temporal reference for 
quantifying the customs value is the time when the goods are placed under the 
customs warehousing arrangement? Alternatively, must those provisions be 
interpreted as meaning that the customs value is to be calculated at the time when 
the goods are released for free circulation, that is, when the customs debt arises, 
even though those goods were previously placed in a customs warehouse? 
4. In the case of the rules on successive sales, is it possible to interpret 
Article 147 CCCIP as meaning that, where goods are brought into a customs 
warehouse, that is sufficient to allow the presumption that the sale which preceded 
the last sale before the goods were brought into the customs territory was made 
with a view to export to the European Union? 
5. In relation to certificates of origin, are Articles 118 and 97k CCCIP to be 
interpreted as meaning that the submission outside the two-year period of proof 
that the goods were released for free circulation leads to the loss of application of 
tariff concessions based on preferential origin, despite the fact that the certificate 
of origin on which the application for the tariff preference is based was used in 
COMPAÑÍA DE DISTRIBUCIÓN INTEGRAL LOGISTA 
 
3 
previous partial releases for free circulation of imports which took place within 
that two-year period? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the 
Community Customs Code (‘CCC’), Articles 29, 76(1)(c), 84, 98, 201, 112(3) and 
214. 
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, Articles 95, 97k, 97n, 97t and 118 
and, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1762/95 of 19 July 1995, 
Article 147 (‘CCCIP’). 
Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (‘UCC’), Article 70. 
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, Articles 128 and 347. 
Application in the European Union of the provisions concerning the validity of 
proofs of origin concerning goods placed under some special procedures – 
European Union Guidelines 
Compendium of Customs Valuation texts of the Customs Code Committee 
(Customs Valuation section) (TAXUD/800/2002), Commentary 7. 
Explanatory note 1.1 of the Customs Valuation Technical Committee. 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 December 2013, Christodoulou and Others 
(C-116/12, EU:C:2013:825, paragraph 40). 
Judgments of the Court of Justice of 16 November 2006, Compaq Computer 
International Corporation (C-306/04, EU:C:2006:716, paragraph 30), of 
20 December 2017, Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland (C-529/16, 
EU:C:2017:984, paragraph 24), and of 20 June 2019, Oribalt Rîga (C-1/18, 
EU:C:2019:519, paragraph 22). 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 9 November 2017, LS 
Customs Services (C-46/16, EU:C:2017:839). 
Judgments of 6 June 1990, Unifert (C-11/89, EU:C:1990:237, paragraph 11), and 
of 28 February 2008, Carboni e derivati (C-263/06, EU:C:2008:128, 
paragraph 28). 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-348/24 
 
4  
Provisions of national law relied on 
Judgment of the Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo (Chamber for Contentious 
Administrative Proceedings) of the Audiencia Nacional (National High Court, 
Spain) of 25 September 2017 (case 520/2016, ES:AN:2017:3708). 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 Corporación Habanos (CH) sold cigars to Altadis (first transfer) and took charge 
of transporting the product from Cuba to the customs warehouse in Agoncillo (La 
Rioja, Spain), where Logista, a distribution company, placed the goods into the 
warehouse as the consignee. 
2 The cigars from Cuba which were stored in the Agoncillo customs warehouse 
under the customs warehousing arrangement had different destinations. Altadis 
sold some of the goods to Logista, which, in turn, sold some of the goods in Ceuta 
and Melilla, areas outside the Union Customs Territory (‘UCT’) and others to 
tobacconists. As regards the goods that were sold to tobacconists (which are the 
goods at issue in the proceedings), Logista placed those goods in the customs 
warehouse as the consignee and Altadis retained ownership until Logista agreed 
the sale of the goods with the tobacconists, at which point Altadis transferred 
ownership to Logista (second transfer) which released the goods for free 
circulation so that they could be sold and subsequently supplied to the 
tobacconists. 
3 The Taxation Agency opened a number of records of non-compliance against 
Logista under the heading ‘Community External Tariff’, in respect of the financial 
years 2012 to 2015, on the basis of different grounds. 
4 Firstly, the adjustment was based on the fact that the customs value, which had 
been declared and related to the sale of Cuban cigars by CH to Altadis, did not 
comply with the conditions laid down for the application of the successive sales 
arrangements laid down in Article 147 CCCIP. The Taxation Agency took the 
view that the first sale (by CH to Altadis), which took place before the goods 
entered the customs warehouse, had not been concluded for export to the UCT, 
and therefore it considered that the value to be taken as the customs value was the 
value corresponding to the sale which actually produced the import of the goods 
into the European Union, which was the sale by Altadis to the appellant 
undertaking Logista. 
5 The other ground for the adjustment was that the Taxation Agency took the view 
that the imported goods (tobacco) from Cuba were not eligible for the tariff 
preferences applied at the time of their release for free circulation because two 
years had elapsed since the certificate of origin was issued. 
6 On 16 and 19 January 2015 (2012 financial year), 19 June 2015 (2013 financial 
year), 30 November 2016 (2014 financial year) and 4 January 2018 (2015 
COMPAÑÍA DE DISTRIBUCIÓN INTEGRAL LOGISTA 
 
5 
financial year), the assessment decisions under the heading ‘Community External 
Tariff’ were adopted, confirming the Taxation Agency’s proposals on all points. 
7 Economic administrative complaints were lodged with the Tribunal Económico-
Administrativo Central (Central Tax Tribunal, Spain), which, by judgment of 
25 October 2018, dismissed the pleas put forward against the adjustment under the 
heading ‘Community External Tariff’. 
8 Logista brought a contentious administrative action before the Chamber for 
Contentious Administrative Proceedings of the Audiencia Nacional (National 
High Court) against the judgment of the Tribunal Económico-Administrativo 
Central (Central Tax Tribunal); that action was dismissed by judgment of 9 June 
2021, against which an appeal on a point of law was lodged with the Chamber for 
Contentious Administrative Proceedings of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme 
Court, Spain), the referring court. 
Essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
9 As regards the time of valuation of the goods and, if the goods are in a customs 
warehouse, whether or not it is necessary to prove that the purpose of the sale was 
export to the UCT, Logista submits that: 
(i) The customs value to be taken into account at the time of release for free 
circulation must be the value of the goods at the time when they were placed 
under the customs warehousing arrangement, in other words the value recorded at 
the time of the first transfer, that is the value of the sale by CH to Altadis, the only 
transaction which had taken place at that time. In support of that assertion, Logista 
relies on Article 112 CCC, in accordance with which the value of the goods must 
be set at the time when the goods enter the customs warehouse, even if the 
customs debt arises later when the goods are released for free circulation. 
(ii) Article 112 is applicable to situations in which goods enter customs 
warehouses situated in the UCT, operating under the simplified procedure referred 
to in Article 76(1)(c) of the CCC, which displaces Article 29 CCC because it is a 
special rule. 
(iii) On the basis of the above interpretation, Logista claims that the subsequent 
destination of the goods is irrelevant, since the entry of the goods into a customs 
warehouse is enough to conclude that the goods were sold for export to the UCT. 
In Logista’s submission, that follows from Article 147 of Regulation (EEC) 
No 2454/93 and point 3.1 of Commentary 7 of the Customs Code Committee 
(Customs Valuation section) (TAXUD/800/2002). 
(iv) Therefore, the debate concerning whether or not the sale by CH to Altadis 
was concluded for the purposes of export to the UCT is not relevant since, at the 
time of valuation, the only transaction which had taken place was that between 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-348/24 
 
6  
CH and Altadis, and it is not necessary to apply the rules on successive sales laid 
down in Article 147 CCCIP. 
(v) In the alternative, if Article 147 CCCIP is applicable because it is deemed 
that the customs value must be determined by reference to the time of release for 
free circulation and not the time when the goods entered the customs warehouse 
and, therefore, it is deemed that two transactions took place (the first between CH 
and Altadis and the second between Altadis and Logista), the transaction which 
must be taken into account in that situation is that between CH and Altadis, 
because, as Logista is the operator with exclusive rights to distribute the cigars in 
the European market, the price is that set in the first sale by CH to Altadis, since 
that is the price of export to the UCT. 
10 For its part, the Administración del Estado states, in essence, that: 
(i) Article 29 CCC merely lays down the method for determination of the 
customs value – the transaction value – but does not stipulate the time when that 
valuation must be carried out. 
(ii) The method for determination of the customs value requires, for the 
purposes of application of the transaction value basis method, that there must be a 
sale for export, which has not been established in relation to the first transaction 
(between CH and Altadis). The Administración del Estado refers in that 
connection to Article 147 CCCIP. 
(iii) Where goods enter a customs warehouse situated in the territory of the 
Union, that does not mean that those goods are intended for export to the UCT and 
not all the goods which CH sells to Altadis are intended for export to the UCT. 
11 With regard to the proofs of origin of the goods, on the basis of its interpretation 
of Articles 95, 97 and 118 CCCIP, Logista argues that those provisions do not 
require that all goods under the same quota and having the same origin are to be 
released for free circulation within two years of the issue of the certificates of 
origin which cover them but that that obligation will be fulfilled provided that 
there are partial releases of the goods within the two-year period. The 
Administración del Estado, for its part, argues that each partial release of goods 
under a particular quota is separate and, consequently, must be accompanied by its 
own certificate. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
12 The Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) requires an interpretation of certain 
provisions of the CCC and the CCCIP in order to determine whether assessment 
notices issued under the heading External Tariff are lawful. 
13 The underlying dispute requires, on the one hand, an explanation of how to 
determine the customs value of imported goods placed under customs 
COMPAÑÍA DE DISTRIBUCIÓN INTEGRAL LOGISTA 
 
7 
warehousing arrangements and subsequently released for free circulation under 
the simplified clearance procedure laid down in Article 76 CCC. In particular, the 
Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) is uncertain about the systematic 
interpretation of Articles 29(1), 76(1)(c), 112(3) and 214 CCC, and of Article 147 
CCCIP. 
14 On the other hand, it is necessary to determine the validity of proofs of origin of 
goods subject to certain special arrangements, following the expiry of the two-
year period from the date of issue or establishment of those proofs, where partial 
releases have taken place within that period. For those purposes, the Tribunal 
Supremo (Supreme Court) has questions concerning the interpretation of 
Articles 97k(5), 97n, 97t(7) and 118 CCCIP, in conjunction with Article 108(1) 
CCC and the European Union Guidelines ‘Application in the European Union of 
the provisions concerning the validity of proofs of origin concerning goods placed 
under some special procedures’. 
15 As regards, firstly, the determination of the customs value, a number of issues 
arise which are set out below. Article 29 CCC states that the customs value is to 
be the transaction value, when goods are sold for export to the customs territory of 
the Community, which raises the question whether Article 29 CCC is intended 
only to establish the method for determination of the customs value – the 
transaction value – or whether it refers also to the point in time which must be 
taken into account for the purposes of carrying out that valuation. 
16 In that connection, Explanatory Note 1.1 of the Customs Valuation Technical 
Committee states that the words ‘when sold for export’ in Article 29 CCC should 
not be construed ‘as indicating the point in time to be taken into consideration for 
the purpose of determining the validity of the price’ [free translation], and instead 
merely indicates that the relevant price for the purposes of the valuation is that 
agreed in a sale for export. However, bearing in mind the fact that, in the present 
proceedings, the goods were placed in a customs warehouse and, therefore, a 
suspensive arrangement, the question arises as to whether the method for 
determining the customs value for the purposes of Article 29, on the basis of the 
transaction value, applies solely to situations in which the goods were sold for 
export to the Union. 
17 Likewise, the appellant’s arguments concerning the interpretation of 
Articles 112(3) CCC and 214 CCC, in conjunction with Article 29 CCC, raise 
questions regarding whether the customs value of goods brought into a warehouse 
must be calculated at the time when they are placed under the customs 
warehousing arrangement and not the time when they are released for free 
circulation. 
18 If the view is taken that, for the purpose of determining the customs value, regard 
must be had to the time of release for free circulation, the question then arises as 
to what effect the successive sales arrangements in Article 147 CCCIP have on the 
setting of the customs value, in particular, whether it is necessary for the earlier 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-348/24 
 
8  
sale – which must be taken into account in order to set the customs value – was 
made for export, and if it is necessary for the sale to have been for export, whether 
that condition is assumed to apply when the goods are in a warehouse. 
19 In the opinion of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court), those matters cannot be 
clearly inferred from the case-law of the Court of Justice. The judgment of 
9 November 2017, LS Customs Services (C-46/16, EU:C:2017:839), interpreted 
Article 29 CCC and stated, at paragraph 27, that the transaction value must be 
equal to a price for export to the European Union. It must therefore be agreed, at 
the time of sale, that the goods originating in a third country will be transported 
into the customs territory of the European Union (see, also, judgments of 6 June 
1990, Unifert (‘judgment in Unifert’), C-11/89, EU:C:1990:237, paragraph 11, 
and of 28 February 2008, Carboni e derivati (‘judgment in Carboni’), C-263/06, 
EU:C:2008:128, paragraph 28). That judgment also stated that only a price 
relating to goods destined for the territory of the European Union may be used for 
the customs valuation provided for in Article 29 CCC (paragraph 28), and that it 
would run counter to the objective of the EU rules on customs valuation to accept 
a sales price for export to a third country as the transaction value within the 
meaning of Article 29 CCC (paragraph 29). 
20 However, it is not possible to infer in general from the judgment in Unifert 
(C-11/89, EU:C:1990:237) criteria for determining when sales were carried out 
for export to the Union. In addition, that judgment emphasised that the fact that 
the goods which are the subject of a sale are declared for free circulation in the 
Community is to be regarded as adequate indication that they were sold for export 
to the customs territory of the Community (paragraph 13), a matter also referred to 
in Article 147(1) CCCIP and which may be applicable, if appropriate, to the 
instant case. 
21 On the other hand, the judgment in Carboni (C-263/06, EU:C:2008:128), despite 
stressing that, for the purposes of Article 29(1) CCC, it must be agreed, at the time 
of sale, that the goods originating in a non-member country will be transported 
into the customs territory of the Community, did not address the issues relating to 
the customs value or the customs warehouse. 
22 For the purposes of the interpretation of Article 147 CCCIP, it should also be 
noted that Article 128 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447, applicable 
since 1 May 2016, does not refer to any earlier sale and instead provides that the 
value is to be determined on the basis of the sale. However, Article 347 of 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 includes a transitional provision in 
accordance with which, until 31 December 2017, the transaction value may be 
determined on the basis of an earlier sale where a prior contract exists. In the 
context of the temporal application of Article 147 CCCIP, it is necessary to 
examine, therefore, whether, based on the judgment of the Court of Justice in 
Unifert (in particular, paragraph 21 thereof), in the case of successive sales of 
goods, the importer (who releases the goods for free circulation) may choose any 
COMPAÑÍA DE DISTRIBUCIÓN INTEGRAL LOGISTA 
 
9 
of the prices actually paid or payable for the purposes of determining the 
transaction value. 
23 Secondly, as regards the validity of the proofs of origin, the import of certain 
products, including manufactured tobacco products, is subject to customs duties 
which must be paid when the goods are released for free circulation in the UCT. 
24 Where goods come from certain countries, whose exports it is intended to 
facilitate, provision is made for the application of certain tariff concessions and, in 
order to establish that the goods actually come from a preferential origin, the 
customs authorities require presentation of a certificate of origin within the 
prescribed periods. 
25 In that respect, in response to the Administration’s argument that presentation of 
that certificate outside the two-year time limit leads to the loss of tariff 
concessions based on preferential origin, the appellant counters that, provided that 
there were partial releases of the goods during that two-year period, the 
concessions are not lost. 
26 The different interpretations put forward by the parties and the existence of a 
precedent, accepted by the Customs Authority, in the judgment of the Chamber 
for Contentious Administrative Proceedings of the Audiencia Nacional (National 
High Court) of 25 September 2017, case 520/2016 (ES:AN:2017:3708) create a 
reasonable doubt concerning the loss of the preferential arrangements as a result 
of the presentation of certificates of origin outside the two-year limit, despite the 
fact that, within that period, those certificates covered partial releases of goods 
under the same quota.