Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2002:663
Date: 2002-11-14
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Customs Union
Concepts: Community transit
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Denmark

Summary of the Judgment 
Free movement of goods — Community transit — External Community transit — 
Offences or irregularities — Non-observance of time-limit for notifying principal — 
Effect on recovery on the customs debt — No effect 
(Council Regulation No 2913/92; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 379(1)) 
I - 10655 
SUMMARY — CASE C-112/01 
Article 379(1) of Regulation No 2454/93 
laying down provisions for the implemen­
tation of Regulation No 2913/92 establish­
ing the Community Customs Code, read in 
conjunction with the latter, should be 
interpreted as meaning that a customs debt 
arising by reason of an offence or irregu­
larity committed in connection with a 
consignment placed under the external 
Community transit procedure can be 
recovered from the principal by the office 
of departure even if it did not notify the 
principal before the end of the 11th month 
following the date of registration of the 
Community transit declaration that the 
consignment had not been presented at 
the office of destination and that the place 
of the offence or irregularity could not be 
established. 
An implementing regulation must be given, 
if possible, an interpretation consistent 
with the provisions of the basic regulation. 
No provision of the Customs Code suggests 
that failure to observe the time-limit of 11 
months results in the extinction of the 
customs debt incurred by the principal. 
That time-limit of 11 months is a pro­
cedural rule which is directed only at the 
administrative authorities and the objective 
of which is to ensure diligent uniform 
application, by those authorities, of the 
provisions relating to the recovery of cus­
toms debts in order to secure rapid avail­
ability of the Community's own resources. 
Since the failure to observe the time-limit of 
11 months has, in itself, no effect on the 
recoverability and detailed rules for 
recovery of customs debts, the fact that 
the office of departure did not follow an 
administrative procedure, relating to the 
sending of information, such as the pre­
vious information system, or that the delay 
in notification was due either to an error or 
negligence on the part of that office is 
irrelevant. 
(see paras 29-30, 34, 38-40, 
operative part) 
I - 10656