No C 211/2 Official Journal of the European Communities 8.8.83 
2.1.1. As the provisions of the Directive on the 
customs debt have been adapted in line with the 
national laws of the Member States it is possible 
that there may be divergences between these provi­
sions and those of the Regulation, which are directly 
applicable in the Member States. If the provisions 
of the proposed Regulation are to correspond to 
those of the Directive, therefore, national legislators 
must be entitled to bring the provisions on persons 
liable to payment of customs debts into line with the 
provisions defining the customs debt. 
2.1.2. A further difficulty arises, in the Com­
mittee's view, as a result of the fact that the draft 
Regulation refers to provisions in the Directive 
which may not be known in that form to persons 
applying the laws in the individual Member States, 
in view of the fact that the provisions of the Direc­
tive have been adapted in line with national laws. bound to hamper the understanding and implemen­
tation of the law. For this reason the Committee 
recommends that the provisions dealing with both 
fields be set out in either a Directive or a Regula­
tion. 
2.3. The Committee takes advantage of the 
occasion presented by the draft Regulation and the 
abovementioned reservations to draw attention once 
again to the need to introduce a uniform EC cus­
toms code. Only once this has been done will the 
clarity and uniform application of the laws be guar­
anteed. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Article 2 (1) (a) and Article 7 (I) (a) 
2.1.3. The draft Regulation is made still less tran­
sparent by references to 'the provisions in force in 
the Member States' (for example in Article 3 (b) and 
Article 4 (l)(b)). 
2.2. The legal fields of customs debt and persons 
liable to the payment of customs debt, which are 
fields which should be taken together, are thus dealt 
with in different legal provisions which may not 
always be fully consistent with one another. This is Under these provisions persons who make a decla­
ration in their own name but are acting on behalf of 
another person are themselves liable for payment of 
the debt. This legal provision does not exist in all 
Member States. The proposed provision can there­
fore only be applied in those Member States where 
indirect representation is already admissible. In 
order to make this abundantly clear the Committee 
considers that the words 'in the Member States' 
should be inserted after 'the provisions in force'. 
Done at Brussels, 1 June 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation on the security to be given to ensure 
payment of a customs debt 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 30 of 4 February 1983, page 11. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 25 January 1983 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Econo­
mic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty establishing 
the European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
208th plenary session held in Brussels on 1 and 2 June 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
8. 8. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 211/3 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 198 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council 
of the European Communities on 25 January 1983 
for an opinion on the proposal for a Council Regu­
lation on the security to be given to ensure payment 
of a customs debt, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau 
on 22 February 1983 instructing the Section for 
Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services to draw up 
an opinion on the matter, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the above-
mentioned Section at its meeting on 4 May 1983, 
Having regard to the oral report made by the rap­
porteur, Mr Broicher, 
Having regard to the discussions at its 208th plenary 
session held on 1 and 2 June 1983 (meeting of 
2 June), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
unanimously, with one abstention: 
General comments 
1. Securities for customs debts are required in con­
nection with various customs procedures. Seeing 
that they have this general importance in customs 
law, the Committee welcomes, subject to the com­
ments set out hereinafter, the Commission's propo­
sal to align the provisions of the Member States. In 
Done at Brussels, 2 June 1983. general it considers that the form and content of the 
draft Regulation are satisfactory and should make 
for practical administration. 
The proposal provides for the alignment of the dif­
fering rules of the Member States governing the giv­
ing of security, the requirement to provide security 
for a customs debt already incurred or which might 
be incurred, the various types of security and the use 
to which they are put by the authorities. 
Specific comments 
2. Article 9 
However, the Committee regards this provision, i.e. 
the guarantor must have his normal residence or an 
establishment in the Member State in which the 
security is given, as unnecessary. If the guarantee is 
given by a bank, at present it is sufficient for a bank 
which does not have a branch in another Member 
State to give the address of its principal correspond­
ent bank in the relevant Member State. The restric­
tion in the draft is not only contrary to current prac­
tice but will also lead to delays and additional costs 
for business. It is realized that the customs auth­
orities find it difficult or impossible to judge the 
standing of a bank located in another Member 
State. But in some Member States this also applies 
to many domestic banks, particularly the smaller 
ones. Therefore it should be in order for a corre­
spondent bank to endorse a guarantee given by a 
bank in another Member State; the Commission 
should stipulate that the Member States may also 
recognize such guarantees. The Committee further 
proposes that all language versions make it clear 
that the obligation pursuant to Article 9 applies only 
to the relationship of the guarantor to the customs 
authorities and does not affect the relationship 
between the guarantor and the debtor. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC