61996CJ0292_EN
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Parties
In Case C-292/96,
REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Göritz Intransco International GmbH
and
Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf
on the interpretation of Article 76 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Article 398 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1),
THE COURT
(First Chamber),
composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting as President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges,
Advocate General: M.B. Elmer,
Registrar: R. Grass,
after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:
- Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf, by Birgit Wellen, Regierungsrätin in the Oberfinanzdirektion Düsseldorf, and
- the Commission of the European Communities, by Fernando Castillo de la Torre, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, and Hans-Jürgen Rabe, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg, and of the Brussels Bar,
having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 2 October 1997,
gives the following
Judgment
Grounds
1 By order of 14 August 1996, received at the Court on 4 September 1996, the Finanzgericht (Finance Court), Düsseldorf, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty two questions on the interpretation of Article 76 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1; hereinafter `the Code') and Article 398 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1; hereinafter `the implementing regulation').
2 Those questions were raised in proceedings between Göritz Intransco International GmbH (`Göritz') and Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (Principal Customs Office, Düsseldorf, hereinafter `the Hauptzollamt') concerning the Hauptzollamt's refusal to grant Göritz the status of authorised consignor.
3 The sixth recital in the preamble to the Code states that:
`in view of the paramount importance of external trade for the Community, customs formalities and controls should be abolished or at least kept to a minimum'.
4 The eighth recital states:
`in adopting the measures required to implement this Code, the utmost care must be taken to prevent any fraud or irregularity liable to affect adversely the General Budget of the European Communities'.
5 Under Article 76(1) and (4) of the Code:
`1. In order to simplify completion of formalities and procedures as far as possible while ensuring that operations are conducted in a proper manner, the customs authorities shall, under conditions laid down in accordance with the committee procedure, grant permission for:
(a) the declaration referred to in Article 62 to omit certain of the particulars referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article [or] for some of the documents referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article not to be attached thereto;
(b) a commercial or administrative document, accompanied by request for the goods to be placed under the customs procedure in question, to be lodged in place of the declaration referred to in Article 62;
(c) the goods to be entered for the procedure in question by means of an entry in the records; in this case, the customs authorities may waive the requirement that the declarant presents the goods to customs.
The simplified declaration, commercial or administrative document or entry in the records must contain at least the particulars necessary for identification of the goods. Where the goods are entered in the records, the date of such entry must be included.
...
4. Special simplified procedures for the Community transit procedure shall be laid down in accordance with the committee procedure.'
6 Detailed rules for the implementation of the Code were adopted, in accordance with the committee procedure, by the implementing regulation. Article 398 of that regulation provides:
`The customs authorities of each Member State may authorise any person who fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 399 and who intends to carry out Community transit operations (hereinafter referred [to] as "the authorised consignor") not to present at the office of departure either the goods concerned or the Community transit declaration in respect of those goods.'
7 Article 399 provides:
`1. The authorisation provided for in Article 398 shall be granted only to persons:
(a) who frequently consign goods;
(b) whose records enable the customs authorities to check their operations;
(c) who, where a guarantee is required under the Community transit procedure, provide a comprehensive guarantee; and
(d) [who] have not committed serious or repeated offences against customs or tax legislation.
2. The customs authorities may withdraw the authorisation where the authorised consignor no longer fulfils the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 or fails to comply with the requirements down in this subsection or in the authorisation.'
8 Göritz runs a forwarding agency at Düsseldorf Airport, which lies in the official area of Zollamt Flughafen (the airport customs office).
9 On 4 April 1995, Göritz applied to the Hauptzollamt for the status of authorised consignor for onward dispatch, under the Community transit procedure, of incoming air freight consignments.
Such authorisation would have allowed Göritz to use Community transit declaration forms pre-stamped by the Hauptzollamt as the office of departure. Göritz would thus have been exempt from the normal customs handling of declarations, which can take place only during the opening hours of the office of departure.
10 By decision of 23 June 1995, the Hauptzollamt refused that application on the ground, inter alia, that there was no legal basis for the pre-stamping sought.
It considered that Article 398 of the implementing regulation required an authorised consignor to be exempted from both the obligation to present goods and the obligation to present the Community transit declaration at the office of departure. When, as in this case, the goods have already been presented, it is no longer possible to exempt an authorised consignor from the first obligation which is, in the Hauptzollamt's view, cumulative with the second.
11 Göritz's objection to that refusal was dismissed on 12 December 1995 by the Oberfinanzdirektion (Principal Revenue Office) Düsseldorf.
12 Göritz therefore lodged an appeal before the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, which decided to stay proceedings and seek a preliminary ruling from the Court on the following questions:
`1. Is Article 76(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, in conjunction with Article 398 et seq. of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, the legal basis for granting the status of "authorised consignor", or is such authorisation, pursuant to Article 76(4) of Regulation No 2913/92, to be based only on the said Article 398 et seq.?
2. Does Article 398 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code preclude authorisation as an "authorised consignor" where, as a result of goods having already been presented to customs, exemption from the obligation to present them provided for in that provision is no longer possible?'
The first question
13 The first question concerns the legal basis on which customs authorities may grant the status of authorised consignor.
14 The Hauptzollamt and the Commission consider that it is clear from Article 76(4) of the Code that the legal basis on which the status of authorised consignor may be granted is Article 398 et seq. of the implementing regulation.
15 As to that, whilst Article 76(1) of the Code makes provision for certain simplified customs procedures, Article 76(4) provides that special simplified procedures for the Community transit procedure are to be laid down in accordance with the committee procedure.
16 Article 76(4) thus excludes the Community transit procedure from the simplified procedures provided for in Article 76(1) of the Code, which are applicable only to other customs procedures.
17 The special simplified procedures for the Community transit procedure are, however, laid down, as regards the procedures applicable at the office of departure, by Articles 398 to 405 of the implementing regulation.
18 The answer to the first question must therefore be that, under Article 76(4) of the Code, customs authorities may grant the status of authorised consignor only on the basis of Articles 398 to 405 of the implementing regulation.
The second question
19 By its second question, the national court wishes to know whether Article 398 of the implementing regulation allows customs authorities to grant the status of authorised consignor even when it is no longer possible to exempt such consignor from the obligation to present the goods at the office of departure because they have already been presented to customs.
20 Under that article, the customs authorities of each Member State may permit an authorised consignor not to present at the office of departure either the goods concerned or the Community transit declaration in respect of those goods.
21 Although a reading of the different language versions of Article 398 of the implementing regulation does not make clear whether an authorised consignor may be exempted from the obligation to present the Community transit declaration at the office of departure without also being exempted from the obligation to present the goods, none of those language versions excludes the possibility that the consignor may be exempted from only one of those two obligations.
22 It is clear, moreover, from the sixth and eighth recitals in the preamble to the Code that the aim of the simplified customs procedures is that `customs formalities and controls should be ... kept to a minimum' whilst ensuring that the simplifications provided for are not liable to affect adversely the customs interests of the Community.
23 It is indisputable that even exemption from the single obligation of presenting the Community transit declaration at the office of departure serves to simplify the customs procedures normally incumbent on an operator. Such simplification also serves, to a certain extent, to relieve the administrative burden of the customs authorities.
24 As regards the possibility of adverse effects on the customs interests of the Community, it must first be noted that it is clear from Article 399(1) of the implementing regulation that the customs authorities may refuse to grant the authorisation provided for in Article 398 when they have reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant will not ensure that the customs rules are respected. Likewise, under Article 399(2), they may always withdraw the authorisation if it transpires that the authorised consignor fails to comply with those rules.
25 Furthermore, goods carried under the Community transit procedures remain subject to the customs rules until the final Community check at the office of destination. The fact that goods are subjected to simplified procedures at the office of departure is thus not such as to affect adversely the customs interests of the Community.
26 In any event, there is nothing in the case-file to suggest that the customs interests of the Community will be under any greater threat if the authorisation provided for in Article 398 of the implementing regulation exempts the authorised consignor from the obligation to present the Community transit declaration at the office of departure, without also exempting him from the obligation to present the goods. If the Community legislature has authorised a possible exemption from the two obligations, it is self-evident that such exemption may be confined to only one of the obligations.
27 The answer to the second question must therefore be that Article 398 of the implementing regulation allows customs authorities to grant the status of authorised consignor even when it is no longer possible to exempt such consignor from the obligation to present the goods at the office of departure because they have already been presented to customs.
Decision on costs
Costs
28 The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which has submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the proceedings pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
Operative part
On those grounds,
THE COURT
(First Chamber),
in answer to the questions referred to it by the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of 14 August 1996, hereby rules:
1. Under Article 76(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, customs authorities may grant the status of authorised consignor only on the basis of Articles 398 to 405 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation No 2913/92.
2. Article 398 of Regulation No 2454/93 allows customs authorities to grant the status of authorised consignor even when it is no longer possible to exempt such consignor from the obligation to present the goods at the office of departure because they have already been presented to customs.