Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1998:118
Date: 1998-06-09
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Financial provisions;Free movement of goods;Customs Union;Own resources
Concepts: Own resources of the Communities;Origin of goods;Application ratione temporis
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment
1. Acts of the institutions — Application ratione temporis — Procedural rules — Application to
proceedings pending at the time when they enter into force
2. Own resources of the European Communities — Post-clearance recovery of import duties or
export duties — Reference of cases to the Commission — Scope of the Commission's decision­
making power
(Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Arts 871 and 873)
3. Origin of goods — Preferential tariff arrangements — Post-clearance verification of the origin
of goods — Origin incapable of determination — Consequences
(Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 871)
II-2231
SUMMARY —JOINED CASES T-10/97 AND T-11/97
4. Own resources of the European Communities — Post-clearance recovery of import duties or
export duties — Criteria for waiver of recovery laid down in Article 5(2) of Regulation
No 1697/79 — 'Error made by the competent authorities themselves' — Meaning
(Council Regulation No 1697/79, Art. 5(2))
1. Procedural rules are generally held to
apply to all proceedings pending at the
time when they enter into force, whereas
substantive rules are usually interpreted
as not applying to situations existing
before their entry into force.
2. Articles 871 and 873 of Regulation
No 2454/93 laying down provisions for
the implementation of Regulation
No 2913/92 establishing the Community
Customs Code confer on the Commis­
sion a decision-making power, in particu­
lar where the competent authorities con­
sider that the criteria for waiving post-
clearance recovery of customs duties are
fulfilled. That decision-making power is
designed to ensure the uniform applica­
tion of Community law. The machinery
for referring cases to the Commission
would be rendered pointless if the Com­
mission were required to adhere to the
views expressed by the customs authori­
ties in the request submitted to it by
them. None the less, that decision­
making power in no way permits the
Commission to disregard the right of the
person liable to waiver of the post-
clearance recovery of customs duties
where, having completed its examination
of the matter, it concludes that the criteria
entitling the undertaking to the benefit of
that waiver of recovery are fulfilled.
3. Where a subsequent verification of
imports effected under preferential tariff
arrangements does not confirm the origin
of the goods as stated in the EUR.1 cer­
tificate, it must be concluded that the
goods are of unknown origin and that the
EUR.1 certificate and the preferential tar­
iff were thus wrongly granted.
Consequently, where the Commission is
called upon to determine whether the
customs authorities of a Member State are
required to carry out post-clearance
recovery of import duties, it is entitled to
conclude that the file submitted to it is
complete and that there is no need for it
to seek additional information before
making its decision if the authorities of
the exporting State have informed the
authorities of the importing State that the
exporter is unable to prove that the goods
in question originated from the territory
of the exporting State and neither the
authorities of the importing State nor the
importers have contested the conclusion
that those goods are of unknown origin.
4. In accordance with the very wording of
Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79 on
II - 2232
UNIFRIGO AND CPL IMPERIAL 2 v COMMISSION
the post-clearance recovery of import
duties or export duties, the legitimate
expectations of the person liable warrant
the protection provided for in that article
only if it was the competent authorities
'themselves' which created the basis for
those expectations. Thus, only errors
attributable to acts of the competent
authorities confer entitlement to the
waiver of post-clearance recovery of cus­
toms duties. That condition cannot be
regarded as fulfilled where the competent
authorities have been misled — in par­
ticular as to the origin of the goods — by
incorrect declarations on the part of the
exporter whose validity they do not have
to check or assess. Moreover, the person
liable cannot entertain a legitimate expec­
tation with regard to the validity of
EUR.1 certificates by virtue of the fact
that they were initially accepted by the
customs authorities of a Member State,
since the role of those authorities in
regard to the initial acceptance of declara­
tions in no way prevents subsequent
checks from being carried out.
II - 2233