Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code` () (1999/C 101/02)

On 3 July 1998 the Council, acting in accordance with Article 100a of the Treaty establishing the European Community, asked the Economic and Social Committee for an opinion on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was instructed to prepare the Committee's work on this matter, adopted its opinion on 9 December 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Giesecke.

The Committee adopted the opinion set out below at its 360th plenary session (meeting of 27 January 1999) by 73 votes to five, with one abstention.

1. Introduction

1.1. In 1992 the EEC reached agreement, after decades of endeavour, on the establishment of a Community Customs Code (CCC), as the basic instrument underlying Community customs provisions. The CCC is regarded as a well-balanced compromise between different concepts and philosophies and it is often readily taken as an example by countries establishing modern framework legislation in this field.

1.2. The CCC involved not only the harmonization of a number of approaches, some of which differed markedly from others; it brought about, above all, a higher level of transparency and considerable simplification. As a result the CCC provided the basis for several Community policies, particularly in the areas of trade and indirect taxation. The procedures defined in the CCC also apply to agriculture.

1.3. As the initial regulation establishing the CCC () called on the Commission to submit, by the end of 1997, a report on the adjustments which needed to be made, particularly in respect of the internal market.

1.4. Following this intermediate report and the first changes made as a result of the GATT-Uruguay Round, and also as a result of a growing incidence of fraud, the Commission is now putting forward proposals for modernization; these proposals are based in particular on the ambitious Customs 2000 action programme () and bring about the desired simplification.

1.5. In addition to introducing a degree of simplification, the chief features of the current proposals are: greater flexibility, an improved procedure for recovering duties, and the bringing of the provisions on customs representation into line with the requirements of the internal market.

1.6. The extensive CCC implementing provisions () were formulated in the final phase of the completion of the internal market under considerable time pressure. These implementing provisions require further qualitative revision and ongoing updating to take account of current developments. Continuous efforts will be required in this wide-ranging area in order to tackle issues such as transit procedures () and customs procedures of economic importance.

1.7. The Council had approved the breakdown of these extensive legal provisions between the two regulatory levels (basic regulation and implementing provisions) and granted the Commission considerable powers in this field, whilst at the same time ensuring that the Member States had their say and by providing for a Committee procedure.

2. Commission proposal for a regulation

2.1. The essential aims of the modernized Community Customs Code are (a) to ensure equal application of all customs provisions throughout a unified customs area (also the objective of the Customs 2000 action programme), and (b) to protect the financial interests of the Community and the relevant operator.

2.1.1. The latter objective is served, in particular, by the reform of the Community transit procedure, designed to combat organized fraud, and the reform of the preferential tariff arrangements, mismanagement of which has taken on alarming dimensions in some fields.

2.2. The Commission is seeking to bring about greater flexibility in the CCC, in addition to a further simplification of its provisions. With this aim in view and in the light of the fact that the rules governing customs debt are regarded as too rigid, the Commission proposes that a balance be struck between the interests involved.

2.3. A new type of free zone with special supervision rules is to be recognized; this measure is designed to meet further wishes expressed by Community traders.

2.4. The existing customs procedures with economic impact are to be simplified in a comparable way to the simplification of the Community transit procedure; this will involve making parts of the CCC more flexible.

2.5. A number of other changes to the CCC provisions dealing with customs formalities are designed to take account of the growing computerization of customs clearance.

2.6. A number of other proposals put forward by the Commission seek to increase the effectiveness of the recovery procedure, particularly by extending the prescription period in cases where an irregularity is suspected.

2.7. In some Member States it is customary for customs formalities to be carried out by intermediaries. In this context the Commission proposes that, with effect from 1 January 2002, only indirect representation may be reserved for customs agents.

3. General observations

3.1. The amendments set out in the proposal for a regulation serve both to bring the uniform EU customs provisions into line with current developments and to underscore the fact that these provisions meet the requirements of the new millennium. The Committee welcomes this.

3.2. The Committee highlights the need for the codified customs provisions to be continuously reviewed, at given intervals, to ensure that they are in line with economic reality. Modern customs provisions have a lasting influence on the extent to which all Community traders are able to participate in international trade. These customs provisions therefore need to be constantly reviewed to ensure that they meet the requirements of Community traders. As a customs law is constantly evolving, it is vital for the provisions in this field to be monitored at clearly defined intervals.

3.3. The Committee recognizes that moves towards liberalizing customs checks - designed to benefit honest economic players and to take account of the increasing volume of trade - have to be backed up by sensible supervisory systems, geared to the level of risk, in order to provide safeguards. The operational activities of (a) the Unit on Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF) or (b) the planned independent bureau and the measures proposed in the Customs 2000 action programme should play a special role in this context.

4. Specific comments

The sequence of comments set out below mirrors the order in which the points are set out in the proposal for a regulation.

4.1. Changes to the provisions governing representation (Article 5(2), second subparagraph)

4.1.1. The Committee supports the proposed amendment as the freedom to provide services, which is one of the four basic freedoms of the economic union, must be unreservedly guaranteed in all sectors.

4.1.2. When the Community Customs Code was drawn up in 1992 account had to be taken of a total of twelve national bodies of customs law. The differing aims of these national provisions had to be incorporated into a version which was acceptable to all Member States. For this reason, the provision whereby customs agents were allowed to act as direct representatives was taken over from Member States in which it had been a statutory right for many years.

4.1.3. In the case of direct representation, the risk in respect of customs law lies exclusively with the party being represented; this being the case, the latter party must be given complete freedom to choose his representative. The fact that an agent is officially recognized must not be the deciding factor.

4.1.4. The proposed transitional period extending to 1 January 2002 would appear to be a highly advisable measure as it provides the parties concerned with the requisite amount of time to make the necessary adjustments within the proposed three-year period. The Member States should, however, be entitled to authorize direct representation by any party, irrespective of whether they are officially recognized as declarants, as soon as the amendment comes into force, i.e. with effect from 1 January 1999.

4.1.5. In the context of the freedom to provide services, the Committee is also very critical of the maintenance of the special status of customs agents in respect of indirect representation, even though this is only to constitute an option. Article 64 of the CCC stipulates that customs declarants have to be resident in the EU, thus ensuring that accounts are available for inspection; such representatives regularly operate in the EU. Whether or not representatives may assume responsibility for a customs debt must - as is the case also with debts in respect of national taxes, such as turnover tax on imports or excise duties - be based on whether or not a representative is trustworthy. It should be sufficient, in this respect, for the national customs administrations concerned to carry out a risk analysis.

4.2. Rate of exchange to be used for the calculation of the customs value of goods (first paragraph of Article 35)

4.2.1. The introduction of the euro on 1 January 1999 and the attendant implementation of the third stage of economic and monetary union should mean that there will be no further significant variations in the rates of exchange published in the individual Member States. The Committee assumes that the national currencies of the four Member States not participating in the introduction of the euro will be closely linked to the euro exchange rate.

The European Central Bank will set euro exchange rates in respect of national currencies during the transitional period, involving parallel use of the euro and national currencies, which comes to an end on 1 January 2002. The European Central Bank (ECB) and the Council of Ministers jointly laid down binding exchange rates on 31 December 1998. The exchange rates were subsequently published, in the form of an EC Regulation, in the Official Journal on 31 December 1998. This Regulation came into force on 1 January 1999.

4.2.2. However, difficulties are likely to arise in connection with currency conversion for the purposes of customs value declarations during the transitional period since some member governments have let it be known that they are to switch to the use of the euro for internal customs purposes only on the final day of the transitional period.

4.3. Deadlines in respect of summary declarations [Article 49(1)]

4.3.1. The establishment of a close, concrete link between the goods which are covered by a summary declaration and the person making the declaration is fundamentally in line with practical reality. As the goods are regularly entrusted - also for temporary safekeeping - to the person making the declaration in the subsequent course of the customs procedure, the fact that this person is also to be obliged to present the summary declaration is both advisable and in line with practical reality. The Committee would, however, point out that in the case of the submission of a summary declaration following completion of the transit procedure, a distinction must continue to be drawn between the person acting as principal in respect of the transit procedure and the person making the summary declaration.

4.3.2. In the event of different persons being involved in other than the abovementioned cases, a practical solution may also be achieved through the representation arrangements set out in Article 5.

4.4. Supporting documents in respect of customs declarations (new paragraph 3 to be added to Article 62)

4.4.1. A number of Member States already make provision for declarations to be made electronically and most of the others are likely to follow suit. The Committee therefore welcomes the proposed exemption from the need to submit supporting documents, such as bills or proof of entitlement to preference - cf. in this context Articles 218 to 221 of the CCC implementing regulation. This exemption is an essential prerequisite for the electronic processing of declarations. In the interests of all the parties involved, the Committee does however take the view that the exemption should not be applied to electronic processing in cases where there is a well-founded doubt or where it is suspected that supporting documents have been falsified (). In the case of sensitive imports, such as food products and live animals or plants, it is likely that an exemption from the need to submit the necessary import documentation - such as certificates showing that products are fit for consumption, medical certificates or import licences - can only be able to be achieved by virtue of bilateral agreements on a case by case basis.

4.4.2. Where enterprises make customs declarations electronically, the response from customs administrations also takes the form of a standardized electronic data exchange (UN/EDIFACT). The speed of response to electronic customs declarations, which mainly depends upon how quickly the various customs authorities are able to react, was hampered by the general obligation to submit supporting documents laid down in Article 62(2) of the Code. Such an obligation would detract from the advantages provided by electronic data exchange.

4.4.3. The conditions governing such an agreement have still to be specified in the implementing provisions. These provisions should stipulate that undertakings may store supporting documentation not just in the form of hard copies but also electronically e.g. in the form of CD-ROMs, diskettes or microfiches.

4.4.4. The time limits for storing such supporting documentation should, in the Committee's view, be along the lines of the storage time limits for customs documents laid down elsewhere in the CCC (cf. see Articles 14 to 17).

4.5. Inward processing of compensating products [Article 115(4)]

4.5.1. The possibility of taking compensating products out of the customs regime in respect of freedom of movement, placing them in the inward processing regime and subsequently processing and exporting the products before equivalent primary products have been imported is authorised only in cases where duties are suspended. Restrictions on the use of this alternative procedure have now been set out in Article 569(2) in connection with Annex 78 of the CCC implementing regulation (), in respect of a number of agricultural products. The Committee welcomes the Commission's stated intention of making this special provision more flexible by amending Annex 78. The Committee assumes that the proposed change will also have a positive effect on the implementing provisions, rather than merely introducing restrictions.

4.6. Conditions for authorization of inward processing (Article 117c) ()

4.6.1. When deciding whether to authorize inward processing, account should always be taken of the need to protect the fundamental interests of EU producers. When carrying out such an examination, there is a need to weigh up the export interests of the processing industry in relation to the need to protect the supply industry which produces products for processing which are comparable to the imported products but which are in principle protected by customs duties. Such an appraisal requires a thorough economic knowledge in respect of the EU as a whole. It is therefore frequently very difficult for local customs offices to weigh up these two interests.

4.6.2. The authorities and the business world would be greatly helped by the establishment of an industrial-product list specifying the cases in which the economic conditions are deemed not to have been met (a negative list), together with an agricultural-product list specifying the cases in which the economic conditions have been met (positive list).

4.6.3. The Committee does, however, also welcome the proposed amendment with a view to uniform implementation of the law in all Member States. The Committee assumes that the proposed establishment of a list of clear-cut cases would not disadvantage the industry concerned.

4.7. Time-limits for the exporting of goods placed under the inward processing procedure [Article 118(4)]

4.7.1. The Committee takes the view that it is advisable to establish specific time-limits for the re-exporting of such goods provided that such time-limits are in line with the economic requirements of processing enterprises. The establishment of such time-limits could make it possible to bring about uniform application of the law in the individual Member States.

4.7.2. The Committee nevertheless considers that it is vitally necessary to permit derogations from the re-exporting time-limit, laid down in accordance with the Committee procedure, in well-founded exceptional cases, thereby making it possible to comply with economic interests in particular individual cases (flexible time-limits for well-founded exceptional cases).

4.8. Drawback system in relation to inward processing (Article 124)

4.8.1. The Committee regards the proposed amendments as appropriate, particularly in view of the fact that a number of agricultural products are at present ineligible for draw-back. Products eligible for refunds will probably continue to be exempted from this provision.

4.8.2. In the interests of achieving legal transparency for all the parties involved, the cases in which only the suspensive arrangement may be applied must be clearly and unambiguously specified under the committee procedure.

4.9. Suspension/repayment of import duty under the drawback system [Article 128(1)]

4.9.1. Under the proposed amendment import duties paid on goods placed under the inward processing procedure may no longer be refunded simply because compensating products are placed under the transit procedure. In connection with the restructuring of customs procedures having economic importance, goods may no longer be separately placed under the transit procedure once the inward processing procedure has been concluded; compensating products covered by inward processing authorizations may, however, be exported. This step represents a major simplification for enterprises and it is therefore welcomed by the Committee.

4.9.2. The Committee does, however, believe that it should also be possible to transfer any product from one customs process due to a new, successive process due once the initial process due has been concluded. This is the only way to ensure that undertakings are in a position to respond in an appropriate way to all the requirements of their customers. This is not likely to result in a decline in receipts from duties.

4.10. Processing under customs control (Article 131)

4.10.1. The Committee has no reservations over the proposed rewording of this article.

4.11. Conditions for granting authorization for processing under customs control [Article 133(e)]

4.11.1. The economic requirements should be so defined as to (a) make the legal requirements transparent, and (b) achieve uniform application of the legal provisions. Given that action to promote the procedure for processing under customs control will also serve to safeguard jobs in the EU, the economic requirements should be geared to practical requirements.

4.11.2. The establishment of a uniform definition would, in the Committee's view, make it easier to weigh up the respective interests of enterprises involved in importing goods for processing and the interests of producers of similar products in the individual Member States, which need to be protected.

4.12. Partial relief from import duties under the temporary importation procedure (Article 142)

4.12.1. The proposed amendment brings the two alternative arrangements in respect of temporarily imported goods into line with each other. The Committee welcomes this.

4.12.2. The Committee takes the view that the question of the ownership of temporarily imported goods should not be a crucial factor in determining whether they may be placed under the procedure in question. The only decisive factor should be the customs status of the goods. This amendment would not appear to jeopardize economic interests.

4.13. Time to be taken into account when assessing the duty applicable to goods placed under the temporary importation procedure (Article 144)

4.13.1. The deletion of the existing Article 144(1) gives priority to the provisions of Article 214 in determining the assessment bases for customs debts arising in respect of goods placed under the temporary importation procedure with total relief from import duties. This amendment appears to be in line with practical requirements and is therefore endorsed.

4.13.2. Since customs duties should be levied only once in respect of a given product, the new version of Article 114 stipulates that, in the case of goods placed under the temporary importation procedure with partial relief from import duties, the duties payable for the period of importation - 3 % per calendar month or fraction of a month - shall be deducted from the overall duty payable. This amendment helps clarify the situation and is therefore welcomed.

4.14. Repairs free of charge (Article 152)

4.14.1. In the Committee's view, the proposed amendment to Article 152 constitutes a clear transfer of power from the Council to the Commission. The Committee rejects this transfer of power.

4.14.2. Article 152 regulates exemption from customs duties of goods, originally imported from outside the EU and subsequently released for free circulation, which are exported temporarily to enable repairs to be carried out free of charge. This possibility of exporting goods outside the EU for repairs free of charge and subsequently re-importing the repaired goods without having to pay duty must not be relegated to the status of an option in the CCC implementing provisions ('the Committee procedure may be used to determine the cases`).

4.14.3. Any failure fully to implement this principle would result in the application, in such cases, of the principle set out in Article 151 whereby duties are calculated using the differential method. The Committee takes the view that, bearing this fact in mind, the economic need for the proposed provision should be given greater priority.

4.15. Deletion of Article 153 (repairs subject to payment)

4.15.1. For the reasons already set under point 4.14 above, the Committee rejects the proposed deletion.

4.15.2. Article 153, too, provides for an exemption from levying customs duties using the differential method (Article 151) in favour of levying duties on the basis of added value, in accordance with the amount of the repair costs. This provision, which is important to many enterprises, must not be called into question by the possible inclusion of an optional provision in the CCC implementing regulation.

4.16. Establishment of free zones (Article 167)

4.16.1. In its study on the operation of free zones in the EU, the Commission pointed out that a number of different types of free zones existed in the individual Member States. Whereas the 'old style` free zones were always enclosed and could only be entered at fixed points where customs offices had been established, the 'new style` free zones are not enclosed. In the latter free zones, customs controls take the form - as they do in the provisions governing customs warehouses - of customs declarations in respect of the individual non-EU goods.

As there are many more free zones of this type than 'old style` free zones, which are defined by law by the Member States, a responsibility for authorizing the former type of free zones is vested in the customs authorities. The Committee welcomes the abolition of separate legal procedures for the establishment of these free zones as this will considerably simplify matters for all the parties involved.

4.16.2. Customs controls in respect of the 'new style` non-enclosed free zones, may be carried out through the submission of customs declarations in respect of non-EU products. This makes it possible for local customs authorities to respond in a flexible way should traders wish to use this procedure. Bearing in mind that the establishment of such free zones is important to a number of sectors, the Committee welcomes the proposed amendment.

4.17. Supervision of free zones (Article 168)

4.17.1. As it will in future be possible to maintain or set up both of the types of free zones described in point 4.16 above, the enclosed zones will require customs supervision through the establishment of customs posts at the points of entry and exit. EU products in free zones will also be subject to customs supervision. The Committee takes the view that this supervision is a necessary requirement.

4.18. Insertion of Article 168(a) (establishment of special free zones)

4.18.1. In the case of the 'new style` free zones described in point 4.16 above, customs checks take the form of declarations in respect of the non-EU products brought into or taken out of the free zone. Responsibility for supervising these operations lies with the customs office responsible for the locality in which the free zone is established. In the Committee's view, this alternative arrangement is a 'business friendly` way to implement the necessary supervision.

4.18.2. Article 170 ('presentation of goods which are to be transferred to a free zone`), Article 176 ('keeping of stock records`) and Article 180 ('issuing of certificates testifying the customs status of goods`) can be applied only to enclosed free zones. The non-applicability of these articles to non-enclosed free zones, as stipulated in the second sentence of the proposed Article 168(a), should be regarded as a consequence of the above-mentioned considerations.

4.19. Exemption from customs duties in spite of irregularities [Article 212(a)]

4.19.1. The proposed amendment serves to underline the view held by the Council since 1 January 1997 that the application of the normal rate of customs duty cannot be regarded as the appropriate sanction for infringements of customs provisions. The proposed amendment protects, above all, parties dealing with the customs authorities in good faith ().

4.20. Place at which a customs debt is incurred [Article 215 (5) and (6)]

4.20.1. The proposed new paragraphs to be added to Article 215 serve to make the CCC more transparent and to clearly identify the Member State in which the customs debt is to be deemed to have been incurred. The proposed additions to the provisions are to be welcomed, insofar as they concern the place at which a customs debt is deemed to have been incurred.

4.20.2. The proposed additional paragraph 5 adds weight to the drive to achieve 'lean` administration and efficient administrative procedures. Unnecessary transfers of responsibility between Member States' authorities for customs debts below the set threshold of ECU 5 000 are to be avoided.

4.20.2.1. This provision must not, however, lead to disputes between Member State administrations over which administration is to receive payments covering administrative costs in respect of 10 % of customs revenue, or to receipt of these payments serving as a criterion for whether administrations are to take action.

4.20.2.2. In addition to the simple issue of the calculation of customs duties, attention also has to be paid here to the issue of the recovery of national taxes, in particular VAT on imports. To avoid conflicting provisions, national VAT laws make use of customs provisions to determine where taxes are due. The proposed new measure must not therefore bring about unreasonable additional expenditure in respect of the collection of VAT involving, for example, requests for tax office reference numbers in other Member States. The Committee takes the view that the proposed amendment makes it necessary to make adjustments to the sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC) and the Directives governing excise duties.

4.20.3. The proposed new paragraph 6 determines the Member State in which a customs debt is deemed to have been incurred in cases where the simplified customs declaration is presented in Member State A and the supplementary declaration is lodged in a different Member State B. This is, in the Committee's view, a very sensible provision. Normally, in accordance with CCC Article 201(1), a customs debt is incurred at the time of acceptance of the simplified customs declaration in Member State A. The two Member States concerned must agree amongst themselves, on a case-by-case basis, on the further action to be taken to settle payments involving the simplified procedure; these agreements should take the form of an administrative agreement. Since the supplementary declaration should generally be submitted in the Member State in which the party making the declaration has its registered office, the administrative authorities in the latter Member State have the appropriate accounting facilities to enable the processes involved to be checked and settled.

4.20.3.1. The national taxation aspect, defined in point 4.20.2.2 above, should also be taken into account in this context. VAT provisions should be laid down in parallel with the customs provisions. In the light of the expenses incurred, the administrations involved should hammer out an agreement on the apportionment of administrative charges in respect of the payments received.

4.21. Subsequent entry in the accounts [Article 220(1)]

4.21.1. The entry in the accounts of sums which have not been finally settled flies in the face of current practice in the EU on the basis of Article 220. The proposed additional provisions do, in the Committee's view, constitute a perfectly appropriate means of combating cases of fraud. High priority should, however, also be attached to protecting the confidence of those who collaborate honestly with the customs authorities. This view was echoed by the Council in its conclusions in respect of the communication from the Commission on the administration of the customs preference provisions ().

4.21.2. With a view to making a distinction between measures to combat fraud, on the one hand, and a need to maintain the necessary degree of confidence on the other hand, Article 220 of the Community Customs Code should be supplemented by a further paragraph stipulating that there should also be no subsequent entry in the accounts in cases where the duly established duty payable has not been entered into the accounts because of the failure on the part of the exporting state or a Member State to provide adequate documentation. This waiver should not apply in cases where the party liable for the customs debt has been aware of this shortcoming.

4.21.3. The Committee believes that the proposed additional provision should apply only in cases where fraud has been established. The proposed new third sub-paragraph does not conclusively define this restricted field of application. The Committee therefore calls upon the Commission to provide a clearer definition of the field of application. The Committee believes that there is a need to make it abundantly clear that the proposed sub-paragraph shall apply only in the case of fraud and not in cases where good faith needs to be protected.

4.22. Communication of the amount of duty entered in the accounts [Article 221(3) and (5)]

Article 221 sets out the provisions governing the communication to the debtor of an amount of duty entered into the accounts. The form which this communication is to take cannot be definitively set out in the Community Customs Code in view of the differences in the Member States' framework laws on taxation.

4.22.1. The Committee endorses the proposed reduction from three years to two, of the time-limit for communicating the amount of duty entered in the accounts. This would mean that decisions in respect of debtors would come into force more quickly.

4.22.2. The proposed suspension of the deadline in cases where appeals have been lodged does, in the Committee's view, provide an appropriate means of (a) enabling traders to have decisions corrected and (b) enabling the customs authorities to review their original decision in an appropriate way, bearing in mind new factors, once a decision has been taken in respect of an appeal.

4.22.3. This provision is, in the Committee's view, in line with the principles of fair taxation and uniform application of the law. The Committee does, however, have considerable reservations as to whether Community traders will readily be able to recognize that a given communication of a customs debt involves different expiry dates. Such 'mixed` communications should be divided up; the bundling together of communications involving the same expiry dates would promote clarity and transparency and therefore be preferable.

4.22.4. The principle set out in the proposed Article 221(3) is based on the assumption that the deadline for determining the amount due will be extended in the event of it being ascertained that the customs provisions have been infringed. This possibility is provided for in the Community Customs Code. In the absence of a uniform provision throughout the EU, this possibility is backed up by national tax laws, under which deadlines may be extended in the event of taxes being reduced as a result of negligence or in the event of fraudulent tax evasion.

4.23. Time limit for payment of the amount of duty [Article 222(2)]

Article 222(2) provides for different time limits, in a number of specially mentioned cases, for the payment of amounts of duty which have been communicated.

4.23.1. It is proposed that the first alternative set out in Article 222(2) be retained; this alternative provides for the obligation to pay to be suspended in four cases defined in Article 876 of the CCC implementing regulation. The purpose of this provision is to prevent the payment of import duties which will in all probability have to be refunded.

4.23.2. The proposed new third alternative concerns the time limits for paying duties in the case of goods removed from customs supervision. Particularly in connection with the reform of the transit procedure, parties liable for the payment of customs debts should, in the event of a breach of the transit provisions, be liable to pay the resultant duties on a pro rata basis geared to the extent of their involvement of these breaches. The Committee calls upon the Commission to set out an appropriate scale in the implementing provisions to the CCC.

4.23.3. Inclusion of the proposed fourth alternative is a consequence of the amendment described in point 4.21 above.

5. Database

In the interests of improved transparency in this field, the Commission is currently establishing a data base (at the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities) which is to provide all users with access to an annually updated version of the CCC, together with the implementing provisions, on payment of a fee. The Committee welcomes the availability of a constantly updated version of the customs provisions in several languages which will be readily available to anyone via the Internet. It does, however, deplore the fact that a charge will be made for accessing data via the Internet. Free access to updated customs provisions is an important instrument, with a view to the completion of the internal market.

Brussels, 27 January 1999.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

() OJ C 108, 7.4.1998, p. 39-41; OJ C 228, 21.7.1998, p. 8.

() OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, ESC opinion: OJ C 60/91, p. 5.

() OJ C 301, 13.11.1995, p. 5.

() OJ L 253, 11.10.1993; OJ L 17, 21.1.1997.

() OJ C 355, 21.11.1997, p. 72.

() The Committee would, by way of example, draw attention in this context to the large number of certificates of origin in respect of textiles (Form A) improperly issued in Bangladesh which led to the subsequent levying of a considerable amount of import duties in the EU.

() OJ L 253, 11.10.1993.

() The Commission organized a 'Matthäus Seminar` in Bordeaux, France, from 27 to 30 September 1998, which addressed the economic conditions in respect of inward processing. The great majority of the business representatives present were in favour of regarding the economic conditions in respect of the inward processing of industrial products as being fulfilled on a permanent basis. In view of the special procedures applicable to agricultural products, however, the economic conditions should in this case be examined as a matter of principle. The special conditions in respect of agriculture - involving, for example, export refunds in respect of particular products - should, in the view of the economic players, not be applied to the industrial sector.

() See the ESC opinion published in OJ C 174, 17.6.1996, point 2.4, p. 14.

() Council document No 8428/98, 11.5.1998.