61982C0278
OPINION OF MRS ADVOCATE GENERAL ROZÈS
DELIVERED ON 9 NOVEMBER 1983 (
1
)
Mr President,
Members of the Court,
Three questions have been referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht [Finance Court] Hamburg in proceedings between Rewe-Handelsgesellschaft Nord mbH, Höhndorf and Firma Rewe-Markt Herbert Kureit, Nient lorf, against Hauptzollämter [Principal Customs Offices] Flensburg, Itzehoe and Lübeck-West, on the interpretation of provisions concerning exemptions from customs duties and taxes on goods contained in travellers' personal luggage (Case 278/82). (
2
)
In addition the Commission of the European Communities has instituted proceedings against the Federal Republic of Germany for a declaration that it has failed to fulfil its obligations in relation to the provisions governing tax exemptions for travellers (Case 325/82).
Because of the very close relationship between the facts on which the two cases are based and despite the fact that the two proceedings have different objectives I propose to present my submissions regarding both cases to the Court at the same time.
The facts are actually veiy similar to those which the Court examined in the so-called “butter-buying cruises” case which gave rise to the Court's judgment of 7 July 1981(Rewe-Handelsgesel/schaft Nord mbH avd Rewe-Markt Steffen v Hauptzollamt Kiel). (
3
)
The facts are set out in the Report for the Hearing which is before the Court and I may therefore summarize them very briefly.
The action in the main proceedings in Case 278/82 was brought before the Finanzgericht by the same wholesale dealer (Rewe-Handelsgesellschaft Nord mbb) and its retail outlet in Niendorf (a port on the Bay of Lübeck) against the Hauptzollämter Flensburg, Itzehoe and Lübeck-West. The Finanzgericht seeks clarification regarding the system of exemptions from customs duties and taxes applicable to goods (agricultural products, whether or not processed, perfume, coffee, tea, tobacco products, matches, wine, beer, spirits) contained in travellers' luggage and acquired by them “duty-free” on board ferries providing regular services either between a non-member country and a Member State (international traffic) or between two Member States (intra-Community traffic), or acquired on board ships sailing from a port of one Member State to the port of another Member State where the passengers go ashore and, without being charged any duty, then return by land (coach) to the Member State in which they began their journey.
The position remains uncertain despite the Court's judgment in the aforementioned case. In the first place the order of 16 June 1982 made by the Bundesfinanzhof [Federal Finance Court] failed to take into account the amendment made by the Court on 15 July 1981 to paragraph 37 of the grounds and to paragraph 5 of the operative part of its judgment of 7 July 1981. (
4
) In the second place the Federal Republic of Germany continues to grant tax exemptions to travellers who, following cruises on the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, import goods purchased free of duty across the maritime frontier of Germany. That situation led the Commission to institute proceedings against Germany for failure to fulfil its obligations (Case 325/82) which I will examine in the second part of my submissions.
First part
For the purpose of examining the questions referred to the Court, I intend to distinguish, on the one hand, between three means of transport used by travellers and, on the other hand, in so far as it is possible, between customs duty exemptions (import charges applicable to agricultural products whether or not processed) and tax exemptions (turnover tax and excise duty).
1. International travel by sea by ferry (non-member country — Member State)
The position should be the same with regard to goods, to agricultural products and to products processed from agricultural products. Article 1 of Regulation No 1818/75 of the Council of 10 July 1975 extended the scope of application of Regulation No 1544/69 of 23 July 1969 to agricultural levies and other import charges provided for under the common agricultural policy.
In the case of customs duty exemptions that position follows clearly from paragraph 1 of the operative part of the Court's judgment of 7 July 1981 and in the case of tax exemptions it follows from paragraph 4: the exemptions, whether from customs duties or taxes, apply to goods contained in the personal luggage of travellers coming from non-member countries irrespective of the origin of the goods or the place from which the goods come.
2. Travel by sea by ferry between one Member State and another (intra-Community travel)
In the case of intra-Community travel it is necessary to distinguish between customs duties and taxes charged on importation in respect of goods acquired tax-free by travellers on board ferries.
2.1.
The position with regard to customs duties charged in respect of such goods also follows from the Court's judgment. Exemptions from customs duties apply only to goods “contained in the personal luggage of travellers coming from non-member countries” and the Community rules (Regulations Nos 1544/69 and 1818/75) are “exhaustive” (paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment).
It follows from the foregoing that, as regards intra-Community ferry travel, the Member States no longer have any power to grant exemptions from customs duties if the goods are not in free circulation on board the ferries within the meaning of Article 10 (1) of the Treaty.
The relevant German provisions were, moreover, amended to conform to Community law with effect from1 January 1982 by a Verordnung [Order] dated 28 September 1982.
2.2.
In contrast opinions differ with regard to the tax position of goods contained in the personal luggage of travellers and purchased by them in the course of such travel, with some holding that tax exemptions cannot be granted while others consider that they may be granted.
2.2.(a)
Several arguments are put forward in support of the view that tax exemptions may be granted :
First, the purpose of Directive 69/169 is to avoid double taxation of imports without, however, eliminating charges altogether. Therefore, to grant an exemption on the importation of goods acquired tax-free on board ferries would effectively create “tax havens”.
Secondly, Article 2 of the Second Directive (72/230) (
5
) created a distinction between the quantitative limits foiexemptions granted in respect of international travel and in respect of intra-Community travel. It also added a second paragraph to the original version of Article 6 of Directive 69/169 (
6
) in the following terms:
“Without prejudice to rules relating to sales made at airport shops under customs control and on board aircraft, Member States may, as regards sale at the retail trade stage, authorize in the cases and under the conditions provided for in paragraphs (3) and (4) the remission of turnover tax on goods carried in the personal luggage of travellers leaving a Member State. No remission may be granted in respect of excise duty.”
That express exception in favour of air travel, repeated in essence in the Third Directive (78/1032), of 19 December 1978 (
7
) cannot be extended by analogy to goods purchased in the course of journeys by sea between Member States.
Finally, it is contended that according to paragraph 6 of the operative part of the Court's judgment of 7 July 1981, “In adopting Directive 69/169, and the Second and Third Directives of 12 June 1972 and of 19 December 1978 respectively which supplement it, the Council intended gradually to establish a complete system of exemptions from turnover tax and excise duty for goods contained in travellers' personal luggage. Consequently in this field the Member States are left with only the restricted power given to them by the directives to grant exemptions other than those specified in the directives.”
The grant of tax exemptions in respect of goods acquired in such circumstances would bear no relationship to the purpose of such exemptions which is to make the people of the Member States more aware of the reality of the common market, to simplify the declarations to be made by travellers crossing the frontiers of the Community and to prevent double taxation.
2.2.(b)
Other arguments are submitted in order to justify the grant of tax exemptions.
One argument is that if exemptions may be authorized in respect of air travel there is no reason why sea travel should not benefit from the same exemptions. It is clear from the observations of the Member States, both of the original members of the Community and of those that acceded to it on 1 January 1973, that at the time when the Second Directive was adopted in 1972 the question of granting tax exemptions in respect of travel by sea did not arise between the “continental” Member States and that it only became an acute issue on the accession of three new States, two of which were island States.
In order to determine the scope of the reservation in Article 6 (2), it is necessary to put it in its specific context and in the more general context of the harmonization of national provisions relating to the system of taxation applicable to international and intra-Community movements of travellers.
As the Commission points out, the scheme of Directive 69/169 is fundamentally different from that of the common rules governing value-added tax. Whilst the harmonization of value-added taxes effected hitherto is based on the maintenance of tax frontiers, that is to say on the principle of taxation on importation into the country of destination (together with remission of tax on exportation from the country of origin), (
8
) the harmonization of exemptions from import taxes granted to individuals is based on the principle of taxation in the country of origin (with remission of tax in the country of destination).
Article 6 (1) of Directive 69/169 enjoins the Member States to take appropriate measures to avoid remission of tax being granted on the purchase of goods by travellers who reside in the Community and who benefit from the common rules governing exemptions provided for in the directive.
After making an initial exception relating to air travel, Article 6 (2) enjoins the Member States to take the necessary steps to permit, in the cases and under the conditions provided for in paragraphs (3) and (4), the remission of turnover tax at the retail stage on sales of goods carried in the personal luggage of travellers leaving the territory of a Member State, but it excludes the remission of excise duty.
Those cases relate to both persons residing outside the Community and those residing within it; with regard to the latter, tax may be remitted only in respect of items the individual value of which, inclusive of tax, exceeds the amount specified in Article 2 (1).
It is possible to levy no tax on goods contained in travellers' personal luggage in the country of destination because “as a general rule” tax is charged in the country of origin and because a presumption exists that tax has not been remitted there. That does not, however, exclude the possibility of granting, in certain circumstances, a remission of tax on arrival, even where there has been a remission of tax on departure. An anomaly is therefore tolerated whereby there is total absence of taxation to the extent of the lower limits granted to travellers coming from a non-member country.
I agree with Advocate General Capotorti (
9
) that the reservation contained in Article 6 (2) has a wide scope and that it does not affect the tax system applicable to tax-free sales in the course of intra-Community travel by sea.
It is true that the States seeking to accede to the Community were consulted with regard to the amendment made to Article 6. However, the fact that those States did not, at that time, raise any objections to a possible interpretation of the amendment which would adversely affect sales on board ferries cannot amount to tacit acceptance of an interpretation to which their attention was not specifically drawn.
Against the argument based on the “complete” nature of the system of tax exemptions created by the directives in relation to movements of travellers within the Community, it must be observed that the Court took care in paragraph 6 of the operative part of its judgment in that case to qualify the verb “establish” with the adverb “gradually”; that wording clearly contrasts with the “exhaustive” (
10
) nature of the rules on exemptions from customs duty. The gradual nature of harmonization in that field is emphasized by the fact that the directives on the matter are numbered successively.
It is true that the legislation of the Member States concerning turnover tax is now the subject of a “common system” of value-added tax; but in reality the system is “common” in part only. (
11
)
The Sixth Council Directive (
12
) (17 May 1977) laid down a uniform basis of assessment for value-added tax. Article 2 thereof provides that the importation of goods is to be subject to value-added tax.
Article 14 provides for a limited number of exemptions on importation; none of them is concerned with exemptions from value-added tax on the importation of goods purchased in the course of intra-Community travel, whether by air or by sea. However, as the Uniteci Kingdom points out, those exemptions are stated to be without prejudice to other Community tax provisions. (
13
)
With regard to excise duties, harmonization has not yet begun in relation to provisions governing the factors comprising the duty on tobacco products.
In that respect it seems to me that reference to the New York Convention of 1954, to which all the Member States are parties, is of some relevance.
Article 13 of the Convention states that:
“Nothing in this Convention shall prevent Contracting States which form a customs or economic union from enacting special provisions applicable to residents of the States forming that union.” Moreover, Article 234 of the EEC Treaty provides that:
“The rights and obligations arising from agreements concluded before the entry into force of this Treaty between one or more Member States on the one hand, and one or more third countries on the other, shall not be affected by the provisions of the Treaty...”. The Member States may not, therefore, rely on the 1954 Convention in order to object to the application in their relations with one another of a system which does not regulate the position in the same manner as the Convention. However, in the absence of an exhaustive set of common rules in respect of exemptions from import taxes granted to individuals, it is possible to interpret the existing Community provisions in a manner which is compatible with the New York Convention.
The system of “duty-free shops” in Community air and sea travel remains a matter within the jurisdiction of the Member States and it is the interpretation proposed by Rewe which would be incompatible with the Convention.
Finally, legislative developments after the adoption of the 1972 Directive provide arguments of substance.
After the introduction of the exception, the Commission proposed (
14
) to the Council on 22 September 1972 that it should adopt a third directive in order, in particular, to harmonize the rules relating to remission of tax as regards airport shops under customs control and sales on board aircraft, ships and hovercraft carrying paying passengers, to the exclusion, however, of the tax rules relating to goods consumed on board such means of transport. The Commission had to withdraw its proposal in the face of objections from the Member States. Yet it is interesting to note that the Commission itself stated in that proposal that at that time there was no Community regime covering sales under customs control, either at airports and on board aircraft or on board ships and that the same rules should apply in both cases.
Finally, during the course of these proceedings, the Commission, on 11 April 1983, proposed to the Council (
15
) that it should adopt a seventh directive amending Directive 69/169 and simply deleting the phrase beginning “without prejudice to” giving the following grounds in the preamble:
“it must be possible for Member States to maintain in force the provisions they apply at present to sales made in shops under customs control at airports and ports, or on board means of air or sea transport, to travellers going to third countries”,
and, more particularly,
“it would appear to be advisable to limit the value and quantity of goods supplied tax-free to persons travelling between Member States [on board aircraft, and on vessels or hovercraft used for sea transport] and to allow such persons an exemption at import corresponding to that granted to travellers coming from third countries”.
3. Intra-Community travel combining ship and coach
The situation envisaged by the national court concerns ships sailing from a port in one Member State (Federal Republic of Germany) to a port in another Member State (Denmark) on board which travellers purchase free of customs duties and taxes goods which are not in free circulation and which have not been charged to any turnover tax or excise duty; after disembarking in the port of the other Member State (Denmark) the travellers return by land (coach) to the Member State from which they came (Federal Republic of Germany).
3.1.
All the observations submitted to the Court in respect of such traffic agree that, as in ¡ntra-Community ferry travel, customs duty exemptions do not apply to such goods.
3.2.
The fact that it is accepted that tax exemptions do apply to intra-Community ferry travel does not necessarily mean that travel combining ship and coach should be treated in the same way, contrary to the view taken by the German Government and by the shipping undertaking in Flensburg whose intervention in the proceedings was admitted by the national court.
In order for the tax exemptions to apply, the essential purpose of such “journeys” must not be to enable goods to be purchased free of tax and imported into the country of departure without, once again, their being charged to tax. The criterion could, for example, be whether the remission of tax offsets the cost of the journey for the travellers or whether, even if it does not offset the cost completely, it remains sufficiently attractive. It would also be possible to subject the grant of the exemptions to a requirement that the travellers must in fact have the opportunity, according to the particulars on the ticket, to disembark for the purpose of leaving the area of the port under customs control and to make purchases which are not free of tax before embarking on the coach. In conclusion, reference should be made to the concept of “bona fide” travellers, in the words of the Irish Government, or the concept of “economically justified travel”, in the words of the French Government.
In conclusion, therefore, I propose that the questions referred to the Court by the Finanzgericht Hamburg should be answered as follows:
1.
Customs-duty and tax concessions on imports apply to goods which, even if they are not in free circulation in the Member States or have not borne turnover taxes or excise duties in the Member States or non-member countries, are contained in travellers' personal luggage and which were purchased by them on board a ferry providing regular international services (between a non-member country and a Member State).
2.
(a)
Cumstoms-duty concessions in respect of imports do not apply to goods which are not in free circulation in the Member States and which were purchased by passengers on board a ferry providing regular intra-Community services (between one Member State and another Member State).
(b)
As Community law stands at present, goods contained in travellers' personal luggage and purchased on board a ferry providing regular intra-Community services benefit from the tax exemptions granted to imports from non-member countries without its ...being necessary to investigate whether the said goods were acquired subject to the general rules governing taxation on the domestic market of one of the Member States.
3.
Tax concessions provided for on imports from non-member countries also apply to goods contained in the personal luggage of travellers who, before returning by land to the Member State from which they came, purchased the goods on board a ship sailing from a port of the Member State of departure to a port in another Member State provided that the travellers were in fact able to disembark in the latter State and there purchase goods subject to the general rules governing taxation on the domestic market of that State.
Second part
Following the Court's judgment of 7 July 1981, the Commission, by a letter dated 2 February 1982, requested all the Member States to ensure that their practices conformed to that judgment by 31 March 1982 at the latest.
By a telex message of 31 March 1982 the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany replied that it considered that the Commission had itself not drawn the necessary conclusions from that judgment; it let it be understood that it would not comply with the Commission's interpretation of the judgment until Community provisions had been adopted laying down uniform rules regarding exemptions from customs duties and taxes granted in respect of goods contained in travellers' personal luggage and in respect of all types of intra-Community travel.
It appears that the governments of the other Member States reacted in the same manner as the German Government.
On 7 April 1982 the Commission reminded all the Member States of the terms of its letter of 2 February 1982. In its letter (
16
) to the German Government, it stated, in particular, that the reply contained in the German Government's telex message of 31 March 1982 was insufficient and it called on the German Government to submit its observations within three weeks.
On 11 June 1982, as the Member States had failed to act upon the letter of 7 April 1982, the Commission sent the following reasoned opinions to the Member States :
First, to the Member States other than the Federal Republic of Germany, a reasoned opinion (
17
) enjoining them to bring to an end within one month the sale free of customs duty to persons travelling within the Community of products originating in non-member countries;
Secondly, to the Federal Republic of Germany, a reasoned opinion (
18
) enjoining it to bring to an end within one month the grant of all customs-duty and tax exemptions on the importation of goods by travellers crossing its maritime frontiers without their having disembarked previously in a non-member country “since the Court of Justice has declared Council Regulation No 3023/77 void”.
On 30 August 1982 the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany informed the Commission that it had decided, in common with the other Member States, to terminate, with effect from 1 January 1983, the grant of customs-duty exemptions in respect of goods purchased duty-free in the course of intra-Community travel by air and sea and in the course of short sea-cruises or excursions. However, it was not prepared to terminate the tax exemptions granted in respect of goods purchased in the course of short sea-cruises so long as the grant of exemptions in respect of “tax-free shops” at airports and in respect of sales on board aircraft, hovercraft and ships operating a regular service was not also terminated.
The Commission therefore brought an action before the Court on 20 December 1982 for a declaration that by granting exemptions from turnover tax and excise duties to travellers importing untaxed goods across the maritime customs frontier on the occasion of short cruises (Kurzfahrten) or excursions (Stichfahrten) on the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, in contravention of Directive 69/169, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany claims that the Court should declare the application inadmissible, in the alternative, stay the proceedings until judgment has been given in Case 278/82 and, further in the alternative, dismiss the application as unfounded.
1.
In point of fact the arguments put forward by the German Government in support of its contention that the action is inadmissible relate to the contents of the reasoned opinion (C 82/768) delivered to it and to the question whether the action is well founded.
The German rules make a distinction between the “major transit allowance” (“grosse Transitration”), where the ship comes from the high seas and either last sailed from a foreign port or has remained outside the customs territory for at least eight hours and the “minor transit allowance” (“kleine Transitration”) where goods are imported across the customs frontier after a cruise of less than eight hours. (
19
)
It follows that in the case of sea cruises on ships which do not call at a foreign port, travellers are eligible for the tax exemptions granted to “travellers coming from non-member countries” provided that the vessel has remained outside the customs territory for at least eight hours.
It is that question which is the subject of this action under Article 169.
2.
The question of the exemptions from tax granted to travellers purchasing goods in the course of cruises where the ship remains outside the customs territory for at least eight hours is separate from the question of exemptions from tax (or customs duties) granted to passengers travelling on ferries providing regular services between two Member States or between a Member State and a non-member country.
The situation to which these proceedings relate is, on the contrary, very similar to that of the “butter-buying cruises” which were the subject of the Court's judgment of 7 July 1981, or possibly even to that of the combined ship and coach journeys which were the subject of the first part of my Opinion.
While it is still possible, as Community law stands at present, to grant tax exemptions in respect of goods purchased tax-free on ferries sailing between two Member States, the grant of exemptions in respect of goods purchased in the course of combined ship and coach journeys is lawful only subject to the conditions I have set out; however, in any event, Community provisions prohibit the grant of such exemptions in respect of goods purchased during cruises in the course of which the ship does not call at any port other than its home port, even if it has remained outside the national customs territory for at least eight hours.
Finally, the German Government relies on a document issued by the Council. (
20
) According to the German Government it was stated within the Committee of Permanent Representatives on 31 March 1982 that the fate of “short cruises” depended on the fate of “duty-free shops” in general.
In fact the document which was produced was a declaration made by the German delegation and, as Sir Gordon Slynn, the First Advocate General, has stated : (
21
)
“Whether a particular provision of a directive can be relied upon, should be answered by reference to the terms of the directive itself, and not on the basis of an unpublished declaration made by a representative of one of the institutions involved in the legislative process explaining his understanding of the intention of that institution.”
According to the interpretation which I have proposed, Directive 69/169 is worded in such a way that it must inevitably be unlawful for goods sold to travellers free of tax in the course of cruises of the type in question on the North Sea and the Baltic Sea to be imported tax-free into the Federal Republic of Germany.
I therefore propose that the Court should grant the declaration sought by the Commission and that the Federal Republic of Germany should be ordered to pay the costs.
(
1
)	Translated from the French.
(
2
)	The legislation governing exemptions from customs duties (customs duties and import charges applicable to agricultural products) consists of the following: Regulation (EEC) No 1544/69 of the Council of 23 July 1969 (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 359), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3313/81 of 17 November 1981 (Official Journal 1981, L 334, p. 1); Regulation (EEC) No 1818/75 of the Council of 10 July 1975 (Official Journal 1975, L 185, p. 3), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2780/78 of 27 November 1978 (Official Journal 1978, L 333, p. 7).
The legislation governing tax exemptions (turnover tax and excise duty) consists of the following: Council Directive 69/I69/EEC of 28 May 1969 (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1969 (I), p. 232), as last amended by Council Directive 82/443/EEC of 29 June 1982 (Official Journal 1982, L 206, p. 35).
(
3
)	Case 158/80 [1981] ECR 1805.
(
4
)	The purpose of the amendment was to restrict the obligation to show that the goods transported were acquired subject to the general conditions governing taxation on the domestic market of a Member State and do not qualify for any refund of turnover tax or excise duty solely to the case of transit without stopping through the territory of a non-member country or where the journey begins in a part of the territory of a Member State in which taxes are not chargeable on goods which are consumed there (Articles 2 (4) and 4 (4) of Directive 69/169).
(
5
)	Adopted by the Council on 12 June 1972.
(
6
)	The amendment was proposed to the Council by the Commission on 30 July 1971 (Journal Officiel 1971, C 106, p. 19).
(
7
)	Official Journal 1978, L 366, p. 28: “Without prejudice to rules relating to sales made at airport shops under customs control and on board aircraft, Member Slates shall take the necessary steps with regard to sales at the retail stage to permit in the cases and under the conditions provided for in paragraphs (3) and (4) the remission of turnover tax on deliveries of goods carried in the personal luggage of travellers leaving a Member Slate. No remission may be granted in respcel of excise duly.”
The proposal for the Third Directive submitted by the Commission to the Council on 31 December 1976 (Official Journal 1977, C 31, p. 5) did not include the exception.
(
8
)	See the judgment of the Court of 9 October 1980 in Case 823/79, Criminal proceedings against Giovanni Cardati, [1980] ECR 2773, paragraph 10 of the decision at p. 2780:
“As regards the prohibition imposed by a Member State on persons resident in its territory on the use of vehicles imported temporarily tax-free, it is an effective way of preventing tax frauds and ensuring that taxes are paid in the country of destination of the goods”.
(
9
)	Opinion in Case 158/80 REWE-Handelsgesellschaft Nord mbH and REWE-Markt Stellen ν Hauptzollamt Kiel [1981] ECR 1805, at p. 1848.
(
10
)	Paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment.
(
11
)	Judgment of 5 May 1982 in Case 15/81 Scimi ν Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen [1982] ECR 1409, paragraph 13 of the decision at p. 1427: “It is right to stress that the directives bring about only a partial harmonization of the system of value-added tax.”
(
12
)	Directive 77/388/EEC (Official Journal 1977, L 145, p. 1).
(
13
)	Article 16 of Directive 77/388.
(
14
)	Journal Officiel 1972, C 113, p. 15.
(
15
)	Official Journal 1983, C 114, p. 7.
(
16
)	Letter SG (82) D/5388.
(
17
)	C (82) 545.
(
18
)	C (82) 768.
(
19
)	Paragraph 3 (5) of the Verordnung über die Eingangsabgabenfreiheit von Waren im persönlichen Gepäck der Reisenden [Order on Tax Exemptions on the Importation of Goods contained in Travellers' Personal Luggage] of 3 December 1974 (Bundesgesetzblatt 1974 I, p. 3377), as amended by the Verordnung of 28 September 1982 (Bundesgesetzblatt 1982 I, pp. 1378 and 1379) provides as follows:
“Where a person enters the territory by boat... tax exemptions in respect of tobacco products, in so far as they exceed the quantities referred to in the first sentence of subparagraph (4) hereof [that is to say the minor transit allowance (kleine Transitration) in frontier-zone travel] and in respect of alcoholic beverages, coffee and tea arc also subject, on the crossing of the maritime customs frontier, to the requirement that the ship must come from the high seas and either have last sailed from a foreign port or have remained outside the customs area for at least eight hours.”
(
20
)	Document 6041/82 FISC 16.
(
21
)	Opinion submitted in Case 8/81 Becker ν Finanzamt Münster-Innenstadt [1982] ECR 53, at p. 80.