Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:846
Date: 2025-10-30
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Spain

Summary C-500/24 – 1 
Case C-500/24 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
18 July 2024 
Referring court: 
Tribunal Supremo (Spain) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
16 July 2024 
Appellant: 
Grupo Massimo Dutti SA 
Respondent: 
Administración General del Estado 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
The main proceedings concern a dispute between Grupo Massimo Dutti, S. A. 
(‘Massimo Dutti’) and the Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria 
(National Agency for Tax Administration, Spain; ‘the Tax Authority’) resulting 
from assessments made in respect of the Community External Tariff, for the 2014 
and 2015 financial years, which [Massimo Dutti] is disputing as regards the 
customs value of the goods and the loss of the tariff preferences applied at the 
time of their release for free circulation. 
The Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal Supremo (Administrative 
Division, Supreme Court, Spain) has to hear the appeal brought by Massimo Dutti 
against the judgment of the Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de la 
Audiencia Nacional (Administrative Division, National High Court, Spain), 
rejecting the challenge which it brought against the decision of the Tribunal 
Económico-Administrativo Central (Central Tax Tribunal, Spain), which had 
upheld in part the challenge brought against the assessments made in respect of 
the Community External Tariff, financial years 2014 to 2015, and value added tax 
(‘VAT’), financial years 2014 to 2015. The assessments in respect of VAT do not 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-500/24 
 
2  
give rise to any questions for which a preliminary ruling is required and, therefore, 
the questions referred to the Court of Justice relate solely to the Community 
External Tariff. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
The request for a preliminary ruling concerns the determination of the customs 
value in the case of successive sales. 
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
In the case of successive sales, in order to determine the customs value of the 
goods, where that is the transaction value, must the expressions ‘for export to the 
customs territory of the Community’, mentioned in Article 29 of the CCC and 
Article 70(1) of the UCC, and ‘for export to the customs territory in question’, 
mentioned in Article 147 of the CCC Implementing Provisions, be interpreted as 
meaning that the mere introduction of the goods into EU territory, understood to 
mean the geographical area, by means of their sale, is sufficient, irrespective of 
the customs procedure the goods are subsequently placed under and regardless of 
the purpose for which they are intended, and that in no event is the marketing of 
the goods within EU territory required? 
Or, for the sale to be regarded as having been concluded ‘for export to the customs 
territory in question’, is it necessary to prove that the export destination is the EU 
market? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
With regard to the customs value, it is worth summarising the following 
legislation. 
Article 29 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/1992 of 12 October 1992 
establishing the Community Customs Code (‘the CCC’): 
‘1. The customs value of imported goods shall be the transaction value, that is, 
the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to the 
customs territory of the Community, adjusted, where necessary, in accordance 
with Articles 32 and 33 […].’ 
Article 70 of the current Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs 
Code (‘the UCC’), which has as its heading ‘Method of customs valuation based 
on the transaction value’, contains a stipulation similar to that transcribed above: 
GRUPO MASSIMO DUTTI 
 
3 
‘1. The primary basis for the customs value of goods shall be the transaction 
value, that is the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export 
to the customs territory of the Union, adjusted, where necessary.’ 
Article 147 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying 
down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 
establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 1762/95 (‘the CCC Implementing Provisions’): 
‘1. For the purposes of Article 29 of the Code, the fact that the goods which are 
the subject of a sale are declared for free circulation shall be regarded as adequate 
indication that they were sold for export to the customs territory of the 
Community. In the case of successive sales before valuation, only the last sale, 
which led to the introduction of the goods into the customs territory of the 
Community, or a sale taking place in the customs territory of the Community 
before entry for free circulation of the goods shall constitute such indication. 
Where a price is declared which relates to a sale taking place before the last sale 
on the basis of which the goods were introduced into the customs territory of the 
Community, it must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the customs authorities 
that this sale of goods took place for export to the customs territory in question.’ 
The current Article 128 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 
of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain 
provisions of the UCC states as follows: 
‘1. The transaction value of the goods sold for export to the customs territory of 
the Union shall be determined at the time of acceptance of the customs declaration 
on the basis of the sale occurring immediately before the goods were brought into 
that customs territory. 
2. Where the goods are sold for export to the customs territory of the Union not 
before they were brought into that customs territory but while in temporary 
storage or while placed under a special procedure other than internal transit, end-
use or outward processing, the transaction value will be determined on the basis of 
that sale.’ 
Article 347 of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447, under the heading 
‘Transitional provision on transaction value’, provides: 
‘1. The transaction value of the goods may be determined on the basis of a sale 
occurring before the sale referred to in Article 128(1) of this Regulation where the 
person on whose behalf the declaration is lodged is bound by a contract concluded 
prior to 18 January 2016.’ 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-500/24 
 
4  
Provisions of national law relied on 
The Supreme Court needs to know the interpretation of the EU legislation in order 
to adjudicate on ‘the questions and claims brought before it’ (Article 93 of the Ley 
reguladora de la jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa (Law regulating the 
administrative justice system)). 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
The Tax Authority initiated a number of disputed assessment procedures in 
relation to Massimo Dutti and in respect of the Community External Tariff and 
value added tax for financial years 2014 to 2015. 
A tax adjustment in respect of the Community External Tariff – the only relevant 
adjustment for the purposes of the question referred – was determined, because 
the requirements for applying the rules relating to successive sales were not 
satisfied. 
The taxable operations are as follows: 
The entity Massimo Dutti is a company forming part of Grupo Inditex, whose 
principal activity is the distribution of fashion items, essentially clothing, 
footwear, accessories and home textiles. 
Those goods are manufactured in Asian countries and the manufacturers of the 
goods sell them to ITX TRADING, S. A. (‘ITX’), incorporated in Switzerland. 
ITX then sells the goods to Massimo Dutti. Two sales, therefore, take place: the 
first from the Asian supplier to ITX and the second from ITX to Massimo Dutti. 
The items of clothing are, however, transported directly from the Asian country to 
Spain. 
The majority of the goods were released for consumption and free circulation and 
a portion of them was placed in customs warehousing. With regard to the goods 
released for free circulation, either they were marketed in the European Union or 
they were exported to third countries. The labels in fact allow the garments to be 
marketed in different countries. 
Massimo Dutti declares the value invoiced to ITX by the Asian supplier (first 
sale) as the customs value. 
The Tax Authority took the view that the first sale (Asian manufacturer to ITX) 
had not been concluded for export to the customs territory and, therefore, it 
considered that the value to be taken as the customs value was the value 
corresponding to the sale which actually produced the import of the goods into the 
European Union, which was the sale by ITX to Massimo Dutti (second sale). 
GRUPO MASSIMO DUTTI 
 
5 
On 12 July 2017 (External Tariff, financial years 2014 to 2015), 23 October 2017 
(VAT, financial year 2014 to January 2015) and 23 October 2017 (VAT, February 
to December 2015), assessment decisions were issued in respect of the items 
‘Community External Tariff’ and ‘Inspection Reports VAT’, confirming the 
inspectors’ proposals in every particular. 
Challenges to each of the assessment decisions were brought before the Central 
Tax Tribunal, which, in a decision of 3 June 2020, upheld the challenges in part, 
in relation to the sole point concerning the legitimacy of the comprehensive VAT 
adjustment, rejecting the reasons put forward against the adjustment in respect of 
the Community External Tariff. 
Massimo Dutti brought an administrative action against the decision of the Central 
Tax Tribunal before the Administrative Division of the National High Court. That 
challenge was rejected in the judgment of 24 May 2022 which is the subject of the 
present appeal. 
In its judgment, the National High Court held that the customs value of the goods 
had to be that corresponding to the sale between ITX and Massimo Dutti (second 
sale), given that that sale was concluded ‘for export’ to the territory of the customs 
union and that, in the case of the first sale (Asian manufacturer to ITX), in its 
opinion, the purpose of exporting the goods to the territory of the European Union 
had not been demonstrated. 
It reasoned that the fact that the destination of the goods was the European Union 
was not sufficient, since the goods could be re-exported. In the opinion of the 
National High Court, it has not, in the case of the first sale, been proved that the 
final destination of the goods was Spain, since the goods could have been 
redirected to another country outside the European Union in which the appellant 
company had commercial interests and where the goods are prepared for sale by 
having the appropriate labels. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
Massimo Dutti submits that it is necessary for the Court of Justice to clarify 
whether a sale made ‘for export to the customs territory of the Union’ requires not 
only the introduction of the goods into the customs territory of the Union, but also 
the marketing of the goods in that territory. 
It interprets the term ‘export’ as only requiring that the goods from the third 
country, from which the export takes place, have the customs territory of the 
Union as their destination. It disputes the notion that the consumption or 
marketing of the goods in that territory is necessary. 
The introduction into the customs territory of the Union refers to the act of 
bringing goods to the physical territory. That is, it is sufficient for the goods to 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-500/24 
 
6  
have crossed the external border and entered the geographical area in which EU 
customs legislation applies. 
It maintains that the requirement that the goods should have been sold for export 
cannot be equated with their introduction into the EU market by means of release 
for free circulation. They are two different concepts. 
It also seeks clarification regarding whether Commentary No 7 of the Customs 
Code Committee sets out requirements for the application of the rules on 
successive sales or mere means of proof applicable in the absence of direct 
evidence. 
In its opinion, Commentary No 7 contains interpretation criteria for the 
application of Article 147 of the CCC Implementing Provisions, which are neither 
exhaustive nor cumulative, for the purposes of demonstrating that the goods have 
been sold for export. But it is a non-exhaustive list which allows evidence to the 
contrary, as occurs in the present case. 
In summary, it submits that there is sufficient direct evidence, such as the 
invoices, the certificates of origin, the bills of lading, etc., to prove the 
introduction of the goods into a Spanish port. Proof of compliance with the 
labelling requirement mentioned in Commentary No 7 is, therefore, irrelevant. 
The Administración del Estado (Central State Administration, Spain) notes that 
the Court of Justice has already had the opportunity to rule on the interpretation to 
be given to Article 29 of the CCC, in its judgment of 9 November 2017, LS 
Customs Services (C-46/16, EU:C:2017:839). 
It concludes that, in order to determine whether or not Article 29 of the CCC is 
applicable, it is essential to know whether the goods have or have not been sold 
for export to the Union, emphasising that what matters in that case is that export to 
the customs territory of the Union involves the import by the European Union, not 
in a merely physical sense, but in a full economic sense. The customs value under 
Article 29 of the CCC requires there to be an import in the strict sense of the term; 
that is, an import in which a customs debt becomes due. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
The underlying dispute consists in specifying how the requirement that, in the 
case of successive sales, the earlier sale should be made ‘for export to the customs 
territory of the Union’ is to be interpreted. 
In particular, the uncertainty resides in whether that requirement is satisfied by the 
mere introduction of the goods into the territory, understood to mean the 
geographical area, by means of their sale, irrespective of the customs procedure 
the goods are subsequently placed under and regardless of the purpose for which 
GRUPO MASSIMO DUTTI 
 
7 
they are intended, such that the marketing of the goods within the European Union 
is not necessary. 
Or whether, on the contrary, the goods are required to be introduced into the 
market of the European Union by means of their release for free circulation. In 
particular, the Supreme Court has doubts regarding the systematic interpretation 
of Article 29 of the CCC, Article 70(1) of Regulation 952/2013 and Article 147 of 
the CCC Implementing Provisions. 
The Supreme Court has to determine this appeal brought by Massimo Dutti, a 
company forming part of Grupo Inditex. In relation to other companies of the 
same group, which operate exactly the same system of sales (Asian suppliers to 
the intermediary ITX), there are various appeals that have been allowed to 
proceed before this court, as well as numerous actions in lower courts that are 
awaiting the decision given in the appeals before this court. The debate arising is 
thus identical. Moreover, this court has recently referred a question for a 
preliminary ruling, which gave rise to DDP C-348/24, relating to customs matters. 
However, the question referred to the Court of Justice in that case is not ideal for 
adjudicating on the dispute in the present case. 
The other question referred for a preliminary ruling is, strictly speaking, different, 
as the question posed to the Court of Justice [in that case] is confined to the 
interpretation of Article 29 of the CCC in relation to the customs warehousing 
procedure, the aim being to ascertain whether the mere fact of the goods being 
placed in a customs warehouse is sufficient to assume that the last sale, on the 
basis of which the goods have been introduced into the customs territory, was 
concluded for export to the European Union. Conversely, in the present 
proceedings the question is broader, as it aims to discern whether it is sufficient 
for the goods to have been introduced into the physical territory of the Union, 
irrespective of the customs procedure involved, or whether it is necessary for them 
to be introduced into the EU market by means of their release for free circulation. 
With regard to the relevance of the question, it should be noted that the question 
referred is not hypothetical, because the Supreme Court needs to know the 
interpretation of Article 29 of the CCC, Article 70(1) of the UCC and Article 147 
of the CCC Implementing Provisions in order to determine whether the 
assessments made in respect of the External Tariff were lawful. 
Indeed, the resolution of the dispute depends on that interpretation, as it is 
necessary to know what customs value has to be taken into account in those cases 
in which goods are introduced into the territory of the Union by means of 
successive sales. 
In the opinion of the Supreme Court, the case-law of the Court of Justice does not 
make it possible to assess, on the basis of evidence, the determination of the 
customs value of the imported goods under the interpretation resulting from 
Article 29 of the CCC, Article 70(1) of the UCC and Article 147 of the CCC 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-500/24 
 
8  
Implementing Provisions, as amended by Regulation 1762/1995 [current 
Article 128 of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447]. 
The uncertainty arising is whether, in the case of successive sales, in order to be 
able to establish the primary basis for determining the customs value of goods, 
which is the transaction value, the expression ‘export to the customs territory of 
the Union’ is to interpreted in the physical, geographical sense, requiring the 
export destination to be [EU] territory, or, alternatively, in terms of the 
commercial and economic purpose of the export, requiring the export destination 
to be the EU market. 
As a guiding principle, the transaction value must reflect the real economic value 
of imported goods (judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 December 2013, 
Christodoulou and Others, C-116/12, EU:C:2013:825, paragraph 40) and, 
therefore, take into account all of the elements of [those goods] that have 
economic value (see, to that effect, the judgments of the Court of Justice of 
16 November 2006, Compaq Computer International Corporation, C-306/04, 
EU:C:2006:716, paragraph 30; of 20 December 2017, Hamamatsu Photonics 
Deutschland, C-529/16, EU:C:2017:984, paragraph 24; and of 20 June 2019, 
Oribalt Rīga, C-1/18, EU:C:2019:519, paragraph 22). 
Article 29 of the CCC states that the customs value of the goods is to be the 
transaction value ‘when [those goods are] sold for export to the customs territory 
of the Community’ (Article 70(1) of the UCC: ‘when sold for export to the 
customs territory of the Union’). However, the uncertainty arising in the present 
proceedings, based on the wording of that provision, centres on how the 
expression ‘sold for export to the customs territory’ is to be interpreted. 
That question is relevant, given the situation arising in the present proceedings, in 
which part of the goods have been released for free circulation and another part 
placed in a customs warehouse, with some of the latter having been re-exported. 
Explanatory Note 1.1 of the Customs Valuation Technical Committee maintains 
that the reference in Article 29 of the CCC ‘when sold for export’ should not be 
construed as ‘giving any indication of the time to be taken into consideration when 
deciding whether a price is valid’. In short, for the Committee, that expression 
merely states that the relevant price for the purposes of the valuation is that which 
is agreed in a sale for export. The interpretation criteria of the Customs Valuation 
Technical Committee do not have normative effect, but they are relevant factors 
when it comes to interpreting the rules (Opinion of Advocate General Mischo in 
Hauptzollamt Karlsruhe v Hepp, C-299/90, EU:C:1991:269). 
The uncertainty arises in relation to the application of the rules on successive sales 
under Article 147 of the CCC Implementing Provisions and, in particular, the 
interpretation of the requirement that the earlier sale – which has to be taken into 
account in order to establish the customs value – should have been concluded for 
export. 
GRUPO MASSIMO DUTTI 
 
9 
In the present case, Massimo Dutti purchases different garments from its Asian 
suppliers through ITX, which has its registered office in Switzerland; it is not 
disputed that the destination of the goods purchased from the Asian suppliers is 
Spain. 
The judgment of the National High Court confirmed the assessments made by the 
Tax Authority, considering the fact that the destination of the goods was the 
territory of the European Union to be insufficient, as the goods could be re-
exported. Nevertheless, a dissenting opinion expressed in that judgment states that 
it is not necessary to prove consumption of the imported goods within the 
European Union. That opinion thus considers the introduction of the goods into 
the EU customs territory to be sufficient. 
The judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 November 2017, LS Customs Services 
(C-46/16, EU:C:2017:839), interpreted Article 29 of the CCC. Although the 
situation is not similar to that considered here, paragraph 27 of that judgment 
stated that the transaction value must be equal to a price for export to the 
European Union. 
Thus, it must be agreed, at the time of sale, that the goods originating in a non-
member country will be transported into the customs territory of the Community 
(judgments of 6 June 1990, Unifert, C-11/89, EU:C:1990:237, paragraph 11, and 
of 28 February 2008, Carboni e derivati, C-263/06, EU:C:2008:128, 
paragraph 28). Moreover, [the judgment in LS Customs Services also states that] 
only a price relating to goods destined for the territory of the European Union may 
be used for the customs valuation provided for in Article 29 of the Customs Code 
(paragraph 28) and that it would run counter to the objective of the EU rules on 
customs valuation to accept a sales price for export to a third country as the 
transaction value within the meaning of Article 29 of the Customs Code 
(paragraph 29). 
The judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 June 1990, Unifert (C-11/89, 
EU:C:1990:237) emphasised that the fact that the goods which are the subject of a 
sale are declared for free circulation in the Community is to be regarded as 
adequate indication that they were sold for export to the customs territory of the 
Community (paragraph 12), a matter that is also referred to in Article 147(1) of 
the CCC Implementing Provisions and which may be applicable, if appropriate, to 
the present case. 
In the present case, however, we must take account of the fact that not all of the 
goods were released for free circulation, even if the majority were. That is to say, 
the goods are sent directly to the customs territory of the European Union, where 
they are either released for free circulation or placed under the customs 
warehousing procedure. 
The deciding factor as to whether goods were cleared for import or placed under 
the customs warehousing procedure was the application of tariff preferences. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-500/24 
 
10  
Accordingly, if the goods that were going to be introduced into the territory of the 
European Union did not incur tariffs, on account of preferential treatment by 
reason of their origin, those goods would be cleared for import; if they did incur 
tariffs, they would be placed in a customs warehouse. 
Goods placed under the customs warehousing procedure could be imported or 
exported outside EU territory, according to the needs of the market. 
For the purposes of the interpretation of Article 147 of the CCC Implementing 
Provisions, it is worth mentioning Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 
2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning 
certain provisions of the Union Customs Code. 
Unlike Article 147 of the CCC Implementing Provisions, as amended by 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1762/95, which referred explicitly to ‘successive 
sales before valuation’ and distinguished between, on the one hand, ‘the last sale, 
which led to the introduction of the goods into the customs territory of the 
Community’ and, on the other, ‘a sale taking place in the customs territory of the 
Community before entry for free circulation of the goods’, the current Article 128 
of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 assumes that, from 1 May 2016, the 
transaction value is to be determined on the basis of the sale occurring 
immediately before the goods were brought into that customs territory, without 
recognising the possibility of taking an earlier transaction into account. 
Nevertheless, for those operators who, for the purposes of determining the 
customs value, were, as a result of contracts that had already been concluded, 
using a sale which took place before the UCC entered into force, Article 347 of 
Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 contains a transitional provision under 
which, until 31 December 2017, the value may be determined on the basis of an 
earlier sale, where a prior contract exists. 
It is important to emphasise that, even though the rules relating to successive 
sales, which included the ‘for export’ requirement, have been repealed, the truth is 
that they are substantially similar to the legislation currently in force, in so far as 
Article 128 of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 refers to the fact that the 
transaction value is to be determined on the basis of ‘the sale occurring 
immediately before the goods were brought into that customs territory’, which is 
consistent with Article 29 of the CCC, which refers to the goods being ‘sold for 
export to the customs territory of the Community’.