No C 248/26 Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 9. 84 
Opinion on the proposal for an Council Directive amending Directive 69/169/EEC on the 
harmonization of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating 
to exemption from turnover tax and excise duty on imports in international travel (') 
(84/C 248/14) 
On 13 April 1984 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 100 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on 
the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for 
preparing the Committee's work on this topic, adopted its opinion on 13 June 1984, in 
the light of the report by Mr Noordwal. 
The Economic and Social Committee, at its 218th plenary session, (meeting of 4 July 
1984), adopted the following opinion by a large majority, with nine votes against and 
three abstentions. 
The Committee appreciates the Commission's initia­
tive to increase third country allowances. It consid­
ers the proposed increases to be insufficient however 
and recommends that they be raised in line with the 
levels of the semi-automatic adjustment for intra-
Community allowances proposed by the Commis­
sion in the draft Sixth Directive of 6 April 1983 on 
tax-paid allowances granted to travellers. The Com­
mittee in its opinion of 25 January 1984 adopted this 
proposal by a large majority. 
Increasing international travellers' allowances 
should obviously be seen in a context of reciprocity 
but the Committee feels that the Commission should 
also seize the opportunity to set an example in 
easing international travel and encouraging higher 
allowances especially in view of the fact that the 
United States and most European countries outside 
(') OJ No C 102, 14. 4. 1984, p. 10. the Community already apply higher allowances 
than those now being proposed by the Commission. 
A uniform allowance for intra-Community and 
third-country travellers would further have the effect 
of simplifying and reducing controls and formalities 
at the Community's external and internal borders. 
The economic impact of this proposed increase is, in 
the Committee's opinion, negligible compared with 
the size of trade and the flow of goods between the 
Community and third countries. 
Further the Committee draws attention to the direct 
connection between the present proposal and a re­
cent Commission proposal on tax-free sales (Sev­
enth Directive) according to which intra-Commun­
ity tax-free sales were to be restricted to the level of 
third country allowances. The ESC found these res­
trictions too limited, however, and in its opinion of 
25 January 1984 called for steps to align intra-Com­
munity tax-free sales on the level of intra-Commun­
ity tax and duty-paid allowances proposed in the 
Sixth Directive. 
Done at Brussels, 4 July 1984. 
The Chairman 
of the 
Economic and Social Committee 
Francis CEYRAC 
17. 9. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 248/27 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Rejected amendement: 
The following amendment, drawn up on the basis of the Section opinion and tabled in accord­
ance with the Rules of Procedure, was defeated by the Committee during the debate: 
Redraft the opinion to read as follows: 
'The Committee approves the Commission proposal. It insists yet again that the Commission take 
those steps necessary to ensure progress in all areas of tax harmonization.' 
Reasons 
1. The opinion contains assertions which are incorrect, e.g. that the United States already apply 
'higher allowances than the ones now being proposed by the Commission'. The total gift allow­
ance is $US 25, i.e. about 30 ECU. 
2. The opinion contains no arguments to support the abolition of Community preference. A 
higher intra-Community allowance should therefore be maintained, the ultimate objective being 
tax harmonization and the removal of all trade barriers within the Community's internal market. 
Trade with third countries is run on completely different lines. Harmonization of these two sys­
tems should not even be attempted without some examination, however brief, of the conse­
quences of such a move. 
3. Some Member States are still unable to agree to the current intra-Community allowances, 
even for goods taxed in their country of origin. Given the situation at certain borders (e.g. Den­
mark/Sweden, special position of Andorra, etc.), it is unlikely that a duty-free allowance of 280 
ECU, regardless of origin, could be accepted by all Member States. 
4. If despite this, steps are taken to harmonize the intra-Community allowance and the allow­
ance for travellers from third countries, it could become increasingly difficult or even impossible 
to raise the intra-Community allowances. This would be undesirable. 
Voting: 
For: 8. Against: 55. Abstentions: 8.