Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2013:803
Date: 2013-12-05
Language of the case: Latvian
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Customs Union
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Latvia

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 27 February 2014 1. Customs union — Customs declarations — Post-release examination — Partial examination of the goods — Results of the examination leading to a change in the tariff classification — Application of the results to identical goods covered by earlier customs declarations — Application on the basis of Article 70 of Regulation No 2913/92 — Unlawful (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 70) 2. Customs union — Customs declarations — Post-release examination — Partial examination of the goods — Results of the examination leading to a change in the tariff classification — Application of the results to identical goods covered by earlier customs declarations — Application on the basis of Article 78 of Regulation No 2913/92 — Lawfulness — Conditions (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 78 and 221(3)) 1. Article 70(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, since it applies only to goods covered by ‘a [single] declaration’ where those goods are examined by the customs authorities before those authorities grant the release of those goods, that provision does not permit those authorities to apply the results of the partial examination of goods covered by a customs declaration to goods covered by earlier customs declarations which have already been released by those authorities. (see paras 24, 25, 42, operative part) 2. Article 78 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as permitting the customs authorities to apply the results of a partial examination of goods covered by a customs declaration, carried out by way of sampling of them, to goods covered by earlier customs declarations submitted by the same customs declarant, which were not and can no longer be examined since the release has been granted, where those goods are identical. In that regard, it is irrelevant that the customs declarant is no longer in a position to request a further examination of the goods in question and, if necessary, the taking of additional samples. Article 78 of the Customs Code applies, as a matter of principle, after the grant of the release of the goods to a time when their presentation may be impossible. However, it is essential that customs declarants have the right to challenge such an application, in particular where they consider, despite their own information provided in their customs declarations, that the result of the partial examination of the goods declared is not transferable to goods covered by earlier customs declarations, by adducing evidence in support of that assertion to show that the goods in question are not identical. Moreover, although Article 78 of the Customs Code does not institute any specific time-limit for the amendment of customs declarations, the customs authorities, in accordance with Article 221(3) of that Code, may communicate a new customs debt within a period of three years from the date on which that debt arose. (see paras 34, 35, 38, 40, 43, operative part)