Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2015:500
Date: 2015-07-16
Language of the case: Dutch
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Customs Union
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling;Reference for a preliminary ruling - decision unnecessary
Origin: Netherlands

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 29 October 2015 Customs union — Incurrence of a customs debt on import following the removal of goods subject to duty from customs supervision — Scope — Goods, placed under an external transit procedure, not produced at the customs office of destination — Departure of goods from the customs territory of the Union — Failure to produce customs documents of the third country proving the end of the transit procedure — Incurrence of a customs debt (Council Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, Arts 37(1), 203 and 204; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 365(3) and 366(2) and (3)) Articles 203 and 204 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a failure to comply with the obligation to present goods placed under the external Community transit procedure at the customs office of destination leads to a customs debt being incurred on the basis not of Article 204 of that regulation, but of Article 203 of that regulation, where the goods concerned have left the customs territory of the European Union and the holder under that procedure is unable to produce documents that comply with Article 365(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 993/2001, or Article 366(2) and (3) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 1192/2008. The concept of unlawful removal from customs supervision, referred to in Article 203(1) of Regulation No 2913/92, must be interpreted as covering any act or omission the result of which is to prevent the competent customs authority, if only for a short time, from gaining access to goods under customs supervision and from carrying out the monitoring required under Article 37(1) of that regulation. It is sufficient, for there to be ‘removal from customs supervision’, for the goods in question to have been objectively removed from possible controls, whether or not such controls have actually been carried out by the competent authority. Moreover, the mere fact that the goods at issue in the main proceedings left the customs territory of the European Union does not preclude a failure to comply with the obligation to present those goods at their respective customs offices of destination from being classified as removal from customs supervision, resulting in a customs debt being incurred on the basis of Article 203 of Regulation No 2913/92. Such removal may exist notwithstanding the fact that the goods concerned do not improperly enter the economic network of the European Union. (see paras 28, 29, 34, 40, operative part)