Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2002:433
Date: 2002-07-11
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Taxation;Free movement of goods;Value added tax;Customs Union
Concepts: Import or export procedures;Importation of goods
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment 
Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laius — Turnover taxes — Common system of 
value added tax — Taxable transactions — Importation of goods — Goods which 
I - 6227 
SUMMARY — CASE C-371/99 
entered the Community under specific customs arrangements provided for in Article 7(3) 
of the Sixth Directive — Removal from those arrangements following a number of illegal 
operations committed on the territory of various Member States — Place where goods 
'cease to be covered' by the arrangements — Localisation by reference to the first 
operation constituting a removal of the goods from customs supervision — Definition of 
removal 
(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 7(3)) 
Article 7(3) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 
on the harmonisation of the laws of the 
Member States relating to turnover taxes, 
as amended by Directive 92/111 amending 
Directive 77/388 and introducing simplifi­
cation measures with regard to value added 
tax, provides that, as regards goods which 
enter the Community under one of the 
specific customs arrangements referred to 
in that article, the place of importation of 
goods, as an operation incurring value 
added tax, is the Member State on whose 
territory the goods cease to be covered by 
those arrangements. 
Where goods, transported by road under 
the external Community transit arrange­
ments, are placed on the Community 
market after a number of irregularities or 
offences have been committed successively 
in various Member States, in order to 
determine the place and the time at which 
those goods cease to be covered by the 
arrangements within the meaning of the 
abovementioned provision, where there is 
no applicable provision in Regulation 
No 2726/90 on Community transit, refer­
ence must be made to Article 2(1) of 
Regulation No 2144/87 on customs debt 
and, in particular, to points (c) and (d) of 
that provision. 
The place where the goods cease to be 
covered by the customs arrangement 
referred to in Article 7(3) of the Sixth 
Directive is not only the place where the 
tax liability is incurred under that directive 
but also the place where the customs debt is 
incurred. However, where a number of 
irregularities of the kind which fall within 
the scope of Article 2(l)(c) and (d) of 
Regulation No 2144/87 have been com­
mitted in various Member States, those 
provisions do not specify which of those 
irregularities is decisive for determining the 
time and place where the customs debt is 
incurred. In that respect, the fact that goods 
have been placed under the external Com­
munity transit arrangements implies that 
those goods must be placed under customs 
supervision from the start of operations on 
Community territory until the recovery of 
import duties which fall due as a result of 
the goods ceasing to be covered by those 
arrangements. 
The first operation carried out in contra­
vention of the external Community transit 
I - 6228 
LIBEREXIM 
arrangements does not necessarily cause the 
goods to cease to be covered by those 
arrangements; an irregularity which con­
stitutes a removal of the goods from 
customs supervision always gives rise to a 
customs debt and, thus, to the goods ceas­
ing to be covered by the customs arrange­
ments in question. Consequently, the goods 
cease to be covered by those arrangements 
within the meaning of Article 7(3) of the 
Sixth Directive on the territory of the 
Member State where the first operation 
which can be regarded as a removal of the 
goods from customs supervision was car­
ried out. 
Any act or omission which prevents, if only 
for a short time, the competent customs 
authority from gaining access to goods 
under customs supervision and from moni­
toring them as provided for by the Com­
munity customs provisions must be 
regarded as a removal of the goods in 
question from customs supervision. 
Such removal of goods from customs 
supervision does not require intent, but, 
instead, only that certain objective con­
ditions be met. 
(see paras 38, 43-45, 50-52, 57, 61, 
operative part, paras 1-2) 
I - 6229