Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1997:620
Date: 1997-12-16
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Financial provisions;Own resources
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Denmark

Summary of the Judgmen t 
1. Own resources of the European Communities — Post-clearance recovery of import or export 
duties — Error in the tariff classification in the declaration for release into free circulation — 
Levying of customs duties suspended within the framework of the tariff ceilings applicable at 
the date on which that declaration was accepted and re-established when the error -was 
detected — Amount of customs duties to be calculated without taking that suspension into 
account 
(Council Regulation No 1697/79, Art. 2(1)) 
I - 5285 
SUMMARY — CASE C-413/96 
2. Own resources of the European Communities — Reimbursement or remission of import duties 
— Commission decision — Scope 
(EC Treaty, Art. 177; Council Regulations No 1430/79 and No 1697/79) 
1. Article 2(1) of Regulation N o 1697/79 on 
the post-clearance recovery of import 
duties or export duties which have not 
been required of the person liable for pay­
ment on goods entered for a customs pro­
cedure involving the obligation to pay 
such duties must be construed as meaning 
that, where a post-clearance inspection has 
revealed an error in the tariff classification 
of goods indicated in a declaration for 
release into free circulation, and where the 
levying of customs duties on products 
covered by the heading under which those 
goods ought to have been classified was 
suspended at the date on which that dec­
laration was accepted but had been 
re-established when the error was detected, 
the customs authorities must not take 
account of that suspension in order to 
recalculate the amount of the customs 
duties legally due on the date on which 
the declaration was accepted. 
Since, at the date on which the declaration 
for release into free circulation was 
accepted, tariff suspension was granted 
only within the framework of tariff ceil­
ings, the overall scheme of such a system 
requires the strictest possible adherence to 
the ceilings established. If it were to be 
accepted that ceilings may be exceeded 
retroactively where goods are reclassified 
following the discovery of an error by the 
importer in the tariff classification of goods, 
that would have to be accepted irrespec­
tive of the quantity and value of the goods 
in question. Such an interpretation would 
negate the effectiveness of both the regu­
lation establishing the tariff ceilings and 
that re-establishing the levying of customs 
duties. Furthermore, the fact that a request 
could be made for the ceilings to be 
exceeded retroactively could give rise to 
abuse. 
2. When the Commission, after consultation 
with the Customs Code Committee, has 
delivered a decision addressed to a Member 
State holding that there was, in a specific 
case, no justification for granting remis­
sion of import duties pursuant to the pro­
visions of Regulation N o 1430/79 on the 
repayment or remission of import or export 
duties, and when that decision does not 
contain any legal or factual indication 
relating to the legal basis for effecting 
post-clearance recovery of the import 
duties concerned under Regulation 
N o 1697/79 on the post-clearance recovery 
of import duties or export duties which 
have not been required of the person liable 
for payment on goods entered for a cus­
toms procedure involving the obligation 
to pay such duties, a national court may 
rule on the latter question, having recourse, 
if appropriate, to the procedure under 
Article 177 of the Treaty. 
I - 5286