No C 197/14 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 23. 8. 76 
4. The  Committee  generally  favours  the 
establishment  of  technical  standards  for 
approximation  within  the  Community  on the  basis 
of those  agreed  by international  bodies  such  as the 
International  Organization  of Legal  Metrology.  It 
understands  that  IOLM  has  not  yet  produced 
standards  for check-weighing  and  grading  equipment 
but it urges  the  Commission  to take  part  in any 
work  which  IOLM  may  put  in hand  and  to be 
prepared  if necessary  to make  suitable  amendments 
to its proposal. 
5. The  Committee  draws  attention  to a number  of 
observations  in the  Section's  report  relating  to technical  matters  covered  in the  Annex  to the 
proposal.  It requests  the  Commission  to re-examine 
them  in consultation  with  representatives  of the 
constructors  of check-weighers  and  graders. 
Done  at Brussels,  25 May  1976. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
Opinion  on the  proposal  for  a Council  Regulation  on the  repayment  or remission  of 
import  duties  or export  duties 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 54 of 8 March  1976,  page  85. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 21  January  1976,  the  Council  referred  the  abovementioned  proposal  to the 
Economic  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 
139th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 25 and  26 May  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to  Article  198  of  the  Treaty 
establishing  the European  Economic  Community, 
Having  regard  to the request  for an opinion  made  by 
the Council  of the  European  Communities  on 21 
January  1976, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
27 January  1976  instructing  the Section  for Industry, 
Commerce,  Crafts  and  Services  to draw  up  an 
opinion  and  a report  on the matter, 
Having  regard  to the  opinion  issued  by the  Section 
for Industry,  Commerce,  Crafts  and  Services  at its 
meeting  on 5 May  1976, Having  regard  to the  oral  report  made  by  the 
Rapporteur,  Mr  Marvier, 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 139th  plenary 
session,  held  on 25 and  26 May  1976  (meeting  of 25 
May  1976), 
HAS  DELIVERED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
unanimously: 
The Committee  approves  the proposal,  subject  to the 
comments  set out  below. 
23. 8. 76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 197/15 
1. General  comments 
1.1. The  Committee  considers  it important  that  a 
common  policy  and  a common  procedure  be drawn 
up with  regard  to the  repayment  of import  and 
export  duties.  It is essential  that  these  duties  should 
not be considered  as definitively  collected  until  the 
goods  concerned  have  been  permanently  imported 
into the Community. 
1.2. The  Committee  would  draw  attention  to an 
important  consideration.  Whatever  procedure 
facilities  may  be granted  for  reasons  unconnected 
with  the  present  proposal,  Common  Customs  Tariff 
duties  and  equivalent  duties  must  be levied  on an 
objective  and  equal  basis,  and  must  apply  to all trade 
without  exception.  If this  is not  the  case,  certain 
firms  may  engage  in hazardous  transactions  in the 
belief  that,  one  way  or the other,  they  will  be able  to 
secure  the repayment  or remission  of duties. 
1.3. The  draft  Regulation  is undeniably  a step 
forward.  But  from  the  above  point  of view  it 
constitutes  a new  departure  in the  common  customs 
policy,  in that  the  assessment  criteria  include  many 
subjective  elements,  such  as  mistakes  by  the 
consignee  or the  consignor,  and  non-conformity  of 
goods.  The  implementing  regulations  should  be 
worded  to ensure  that  the  benefits  of the  new 
provisions  are not  jeopardized  because  they  are open 
to abuse. 
i .4. The  Committee  is pleased  to note  that  the 
proposal  takes  into  account  the  uncertainties  of 
international  trade,  but  would  like  the proposal  in its 
entirety  to be brought  into  line  with  the  most  liberal 
provisions  in force  in the  Member  States.  This  does 
not always  appear  to be the  case  in the  present 
document,  particularly  as regards  the  time  limits  for 
submitting  applications. 
2. Specific  comments 
2.1. Article  1 expected  to be solved  by a draft  Regulation  defining 
'customs  debts'  (i.e.,  sums  owed  to  customs 
authorities)  which  is currently  in the  course  of 
preparation.  Nevertheless,  the Committee  would  like 
Article  1 to be precise  on this  matter. 
2.2. Article  3 
2.2.1.  Article  3 (2) stipulates  that  applications  for 
repayment  must  be made  within  twelve  months. 
2.2.2.  The  Committee  recognizes  that,  in normal 
circumstances,  firms  will  very  quickly  realize  that 
wrong  amounts  of  duty  have  been  collected. 
However,  in view  of the  fact  that  the  relevant 
Community  rules  are both  complex  and  in a state  of 
flux,  not  every  firm  will  be able  to keep  abreast  of 
detailed  changes. 
2.2.3.  The  Committee  would  point  out  that  a 
two-year  deadline  is currently  permitted  in several 
Member  States.  It would  be  regrettable  if a 
Community  Regulation  were  a step  backwards  as far 
as the majority  of users  are concerned.  There  should, 
at the very  least,  be a proviso  on the  lines  of the  last 
paragraph  of Article  6. It would  then  be possible  to 
re-examine  individual  cases  if necessary. 
2.3. Article  4 
2.3.1.  The  Committee  is interested  to note  that 
this Article  gives  the  declarant  the  right  to change 
retrospectively  the  customs  regime  under  which 
goods  are placed.  This  is a delicate  question  for  two 
reasons.  Firstly,  the  concept  of  'error'  is very 
subjective,  secondly,  in the  intervening  time  the 
consignee  is free  to do as he wishes  with  the  goods. 
The Committee  therefore  supports  the  three-month 
deadline  laid  down  in Article  4. It would,  however, 
again  advocate  a provision  similar  to the  final 
paragraph  of  Article  6,  which  empowers  the 
competent  authorities  to  give  consideration  to 
particular  cases  even  after  the expiry  of the  deadline. 
The Committee  recommends  that  the  provision  in 
question  apply  to the  proposed  Regulation  as a 
whole. 
2.1.1.  A  definition  should  be given  of the  date 
used  to calculate  the deadlines  for  the submission  of 
applications.  The  proposal  generally  refers  to the 
date when  the  relevant  duties  are  'entered  in the 
accounts'.  It may  be assumed  that  this  means  the 
date of the  entry  into  the  accounts  which  is referred 
to in Article  2 of Directive  69/76/EEC  on  the 
payment  of customs  duties.  But  it could  equally  well 
be the  date  specified  in Article  6 of Council 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  2/71  on own  resources.  The 
difference  between  these  two  dates  is 58 days,  which 
could  hardly  be called  negligible.  This  problem  is 2.4. Article  5 
2.4.1.  This  Article  lays  down  the  conditions  which 
have  to be met  before  import  duties  can  be repaid  or 
remitted  under  Article  4. 
2.4.2.  The  condition  ('the  intention')  set  out  in 
the second  indent  of Article  5 (a)  is completely 
subjective.  It is not  always  easy  to prove  that  the 
condition  set out  in the  third  indent  of Article  5 (a) 
is satisfied. 
No C 197/16 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 23. 8. 76 
2.4.3.  No  definition  is given  of the  'moment' 
when  goods  are  'entered  for  free  circulation'.  The 
meaning  of this  term  is particularly  uncertain  in 
cases  where  registered  importers  make  use  of 
'omnibus  declarations',  which  make  it possible  to 
postpone  the completion  of written  declarations. 
2.5. Article  6 (I) 
2.5.1.  Many  Member  States  have  a special 
procedure  under  which  goods  may  be transported 
directly  to the places  where  they  are to be used. 
2.5.2.  The  second  paragraph  of Article  6 (1) 
should  thus  be amended  to read  as follows: 
' . .. in transit  before  arrival  at the  place  where 
they are entered  for free  circulation'. 
2.6. Article  7 
2.6.1.  In  connection  with  paragraph  3 (a),  the 
Committee  would  draw  attention  once  again  to the 
problem  which  may  arise  when  registered  importers 
make  omnibus  declarations. 
2.7. Article  9 
2.7.1.  Article  6 already  contains  the conditions  set 
out in paragraph  (b).  If it is considered  necessary  to 
be specific  on this  point,  then  the Committee  would 
propose  the insertion  of a new  Article  9 (a),  which, 
in order  to avoid  any  ambiguity,  would  be worded 
as follows: 
'Article  9 (a) 
Import  duties  shall  likewise  not  be repaid  or 
remitted  in respect  of goods  which  have  been  put into free  circulation  in pursuance  of a contract  of 
sale the  terms  of which,  and  in particular  the 
selling  price,  had  been  drawn  up in the light  of 
the defective  nature  of the goods.' 
2.8. Article  11 
2.8.1.  The  Committee  wonders  whether  the  long 
list of special  circumstances  is necessary,  bearing  in 
mind  the  more  general  provisions  set  out  in 
Article  14. 
2.9. Article  14 
2.9.1.  The  Commission  could  issue  an 
implementing  Regulation  clarifying  this  Article.  The 
implementing  Regulation  would  define  the  term 
'negligence'.  It  should  be  noted  that  the 
straightforward  error  to which  the  proposal  refers 
could,  depending  on the  Member  State  and  the 
current  state  of the law,  be regarded  as 'negligence'. 
2.10.  Article  23 
2.10.1.  The  Committee  proposes  the insertion  of a 
new paragraph  3  stating  that,  pending 
implementation  of Article  23 (2),  Member  States' 
own existing  rules  and  rules  subsequently  introduced 
by Member  States,  are to remain  in force  if they  do 
not contravene  the present  proposal. 
Done  at Brussels,  25 May  1976. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
Opinion  on the  proposal  for  a Council  Directive  on the  approximation  of the  laws 
of the  Member  States  relating  to the  measures  to be taken  against  the  emission  of 
pollutants  from  diesel  engines  for use in wheeled  agricultural  or forestry  tractors 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 10 of 15 January  1976,  page  2. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 22 December  1975,  the  Council  referred  the  abovementioned  proposal  to the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  100  of the  Treaty 
establishing  the European  Economic  Community.