EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 25.5.2018 SWD(2018) 260 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT



IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Directive laying down the general arrangements for excise duty (recast) {COM(2018) 346 final}

{SEC(2018) 255 final}

{SWD(2018) 261 final}



Table of Contents 1.Introduction and Context 1.1.Excise duty, excise goods and fiscal risk 1.2.Purpose of Directive 2008/118/EC 1.3.Evaluation of Directive 2008/118/EC 1.4.Intervention Logic 1.5.Trans-European IT systems supporting the excise policy 1.6.Volume of excise trade and fraud 1.7.Sources 2.What is the problem and why is it a problem 2.1.Scope of this initiative 2.2.Excise – Customs interactions: Export 2.2.1.Overview of the current situation 2.2.2.Problem Analysis 2.3.Excise – Customs interactions: Export followed by Transit or using a Single Transport Contract (hereafter: STC) 2.3.1.Overview of the current situation 2.3.2.Problem Analysis 2.4.Excise – Customs interactions: Import

2.4.1.Overview of the current situation 2.4.2.Problem Analysis 2.5.Duty Paid Business-to-Business (B2B) 2.5.1.Overview of the current situation 2.5.2.Problem Analysis 2.6.Low Risk Movements 2.7.Exceptional Situations 2.7.1.Overview of the current situation 2.7.2.Problem Analysis 3.Why should the EU act 4.What should be achieved 4.1.General objectives 4.2.Specific objectives 4.3.Linking the objectives to the problems 4.4.Assessment criteria 4.5.Consistency with other EU policies and with the Charter for fundamental rights 5.What are the various options to achieve the objectives 5.1.Excise – Customs interactions: Export 5.1.1.Option 1: Do nothing (baseline) 5.1.2.Option 2: Data cross-check

5.1.3.Option 3: Automated process synchronisation 5.1.4.Option 4: EU common list of Alternate Proofs of Exit 5.2.Excise – Customs interactions: Export followed by Transit or using STC 5.2.1.Option 1: Do nothing (baseline) 5.2.2.Option 2: Authorise the use of external transit after the export procedure for excise Union goods 5.3.Excise – Customs interactions: Import 5.3.1.Option 1: Do nothing (baseline) 5.3.2.Option 2: Data cross-check 5.4.Duty Paid Business-to-Business 5.4.1.Option 1: Do nothing (baseline) 5.4.2.Option 2: Registration of Economic Operators 5.4.3.Option 3: Automation of Duty Paid B2B processes by extending EMCS 5.5.Exceptional Situations 5.5.1.Option 1: Do nothing (baseline) 5.5.2.Option 2: Specify a common approach supported by legislation and guidelines 6.What are the impacts of the different policy options 6.1.Excise – Customs interactions: Export 6.1.1.Do nothing (baseline) 6.1.2.Data cross-check 6.1.3.Automated process synchronisation

6.1.4.EU common list of Alternate Proofs of Exit 6.2.Excise – Customs interactions: Export followed by Transit or using STC 6.2.1.Do nothing (baseline) 6.2.2.Authorise the use of external transit after the export procedure for excise Union goods 6.3.Excise – Customs interactions: Import 6.3.1.Do nothing (baseline) 6.3.2.Data cross-check 6.4.Duty Paid Business-to-Business 6.4.1.Do nothing (baseline) 6.4.2.Registration of Economic Operators 6.4.3.Automation of Duty Paid B2B processes by extending EMCS 6.5.Exceptional Situations 6.5.1.Do nothing (baseline) 6.5.2.Specify a common approach supported by legislation and guidelines 7.How do the options compare 7.1.Excise – Customs interactions: Export 7.2.Excise – Customs interactions: Export followed by Transit or using STC 7.3.Excise – Customs interactions: Import 7.4.Duty Paid Business-to-Business 7.5.Exceptional Situations

8.The preferred option 8.1.Excise – Customs interactions: Export 8.2.Excise – Customs interactions: Export followed by Transit or using STC 8.3.Excise – Customs interactions: Import 8.4.Duty Paid Business-to-Business 8.5.Exceptional Situations 8.6.REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) 9.How would actual impacts be monitored and evaluated 9.1.Monitoring Indicators 9.2.Monitoring structures 9.3.Evaluation ANNEXES ABBREVIATIONS AES Automated Export System (future UCC system, successor of ECS) Aka also known as APoE Alternate Proof of Exit ARC Administrative Reference Code (identifier of an e-AD) B2B Business to Business

CAPEX Capital Expenditure CCN/CSI Common Communication Network / Common System Interface e-AD electronic Administrative Document

(excise "declaration" for moving goods under duty suspension) ECS Export Control System EMCS Excise Movement Control System EO Economic Operator EOS Economic Operator System FAD Fallback Administrative Document

(replaces an e-AD in the rare occurrence when the EMCS system is down) G€ billion euros (giga euro) IA Impact Assessment ISSG Inter-Service Steering Group IT Information Technology k€ thousand euros (kilo euro) M€ million euros MS Member State n/a not applicable NA National Authority NCTS New Computerised Transit System NGO Non Governmental Organisation OPC Open Public Consultation

OPEX Operating Expenses REFIT Regulatory Fitness and Performance programme SAAD Simplified Administrative Accompanying Document

(excise "declaration" for moving goods under duty paid business-to-business) SEED System for Exchange of Excise Data

(EU repository of authorised Excise traders) SME Small and Medium Enterprises STC Single Transport Contract UCC Union Customs Code UCC/IA Union Customs Code Implementing Act VAT Value-Added Tax VIES VAT Information Exchange System



1.Introduction and Context 1.1.Excise duty, excise goods and fiscal risk Excise duty is an indirect tax applied to certain types of goods (aka "excise goods"), which is collected at the time and place of release for consumption. Some goods are subject to harmonised excise duty in the European Union, i.e. common EU legislation applies to certain products which are subject to excise duty in all EU Member States: alcohol and alcoholic beverages, manufactured tobacco, energy products and electricity. This harmonisation includes the way excise goods are held and moved in the EU but still allows large differences in duty rates between Member States. The movement of excise goods has a high inherent fiscal risk for the following reasons: 1.The duty rates of some excise products (e.g. cigarettes, some energy products) lead to a taxation burden that is much greater than the net value of the goods. 2.The duty rates vary greatly from one Member State to another, which acts as a strong incentive to fraudsters to divert excise goods from low-rate Member States to the illicit markets of high-rate Member States. 3.The total amount of excise duty due on a set of excise goods is collected from one tax payer at a single time and location, which makes excise duty more vulnerable to fraud than other types of indirect taxes. 4.Excise duty is in almost all circumstances due in the Member State of consumption (the destination principle), but excise goods are often produced or imported elsewhere, giving rise to the need for specific procedures to defer the payment of tax, or cumbersome tax refund arrangements.

1.2.Purpose of Directive 2008/118/EC After the establishment of the internal market and the abolition of border controls for fiscal purposes between Member States, provisions were made for excise goods to be moved without first being taxed in the Member State of dispatch (i.e. excise duty is ‘suspended’) and to ensure the possibility of the free movement of excise goods. To allow the free movement of goods while at the same time ensuring that the correct tax debt is ultimately collected by the Member States, EU legislation (in the form of Council Directive 2008/118/EC) sets out general arrangements for goods subject to excise duty, with particular emphasis on the production, storage and movement of excise goods between Member States. Council Directive 2008/118/EC has replaced Council Directive 92/12/EEC. Most storage facilities and movements of excise goods need a guarantee, usually provided for by the consignor at the place of dispatch, to cover for the fiscal risk. Directive 2008/118/EC defines two types of procedures for moving excise goods between Member States: ·Duty suspension: this procedure provides relief to economic operators from having to advance excise duties on production, processing, holding or movement of excise goods not covered by a customs suspensive procedure and before dispatch of the goods, thus improving cash flow. It also ensures that excise duty is only paid once in the Member State where the goods will be released for consumption. Member States impose stringent conditions on the granting of authorisations for duty suspension. ·Duty Paid: this procedure requires excise duties to be paid in advance at the place of dispatch and then at destination (at which point the excise duty paid at dispatch may be refunded). National registration or authorisation procedures tend to be simpler than duty suspension, but there is an additional burden due to the need to process refunds. 1.3.Evaluation of Directive 2008/118/EC The Commission decided to carry out an evaluation of this regulatory area in the framework of the Commission’s REFIT programme and submitted a report to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation and evaluation of Council Directive 2008/118/EC in April 2017. This report was based on two external studies. The first study , on Chapter V of the Directive (i.e. rules on movements of excise goods on which duty has already been paid) was published in 2015 . The second study , which concentrated on Chapters III and IV of the Directive (i.e. provisions on tax warehousing and electronic control system, for duty suspension procedures), was published in 2016. The Council adopted conclusions on this evaluation (see [R6]). Overall, further automation and harmonisation is well supported providing it can be done at reasonable cost; measures to enhance the fight against fraud are also welcome when not hampering legitimate trade. All problems of this initiative are mentioned as areas for improvements in the Council conclusions. 1.4.Intervention Logic During its evaluation process (see section 1.3), Directive 2008/118/EC was seen by most stakeholders as an enormous improvement on its predecessor Directive 92/12/EEC. Nevertheless, several areas for improvement were identified which constitute the drivers of this initiative. This initiative is part of the Commission's Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT). All the selected options of this initiative (except baseline) will have significant impacts on simplification and will reduce regulatory costs. Some selected options will also have a positive impact on Small and Medium Enterprises (SME). This initiative's objectives are described in chapter 4. 1.5.Trans-European IT systems supporting the excise policy The procedures related to excise goods under duty suspension are supported by two paneuropean IT systems: ·EMCS: Excise Movement and Control System

This IT system supervises the cross-border intra-EU movement and export of excise goods under duty suspension; each movement in EMCS must be declared to the system, before the dispatch of the goods, via an "electronic Administrative Document" (e-AD) and is uniquely identified by its "Administrative Reference Code" (ARC). ·SEED: System for Exchange of Excise Data

This IT system is a registry of all Economic Operators authorised to trade excise goods under duty suspension; each Economic Operator is uniquely identified in SEED by its "SEED number". It should be noted that pan-European IT systems have a lifespan of more than 20 years; so, even relatively high initial investments might prove worthwhile and pay back after some years.

The procedures related to excise goods released for consumption (i.e. for which duty has already been paid) are all paper-based. 1.6.Volume of excise trade and fraud The amount of goods value, excise duty and estimated fraud (i.e. excise duty loss) in the EU per year is summarised in the following table (see ANNEX IV for further detail). Excise fraud is by its nature difficult to assess and is based on scarce data; consequently the fraud figures should be treated with caution. Volume of trade, duty and fraud for excise (in billion euros) Import Export Intra EU Total comment Value 432 132 270 834 Excise Duty 34 0* 57 91 * Exported goods are not subject to excise duty in the EU; should the same goods be consumed in the EU, their excise duty would be about EUR 14 billion Estimates of excise duty loss that the policies in the scope of Directive 2008/118/EC may impact Duty loss 0.05 0.03 0.4 0.48 Amount of fraud on which policy options related to declared trade may have an impact 1.7.Baseline The baseline for this initiative is the following set of legal texts: ·Excise legislation: Decision No 1152/2003/EC of the European Parliament and Council, Directive 2008/118/EC, Council Regulation (EU) No 389/2012, Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3649/92, Commission Implementing Regulations (EC) 684/2009, (EU) 612/2013 and (EU) 2016/323; ·the Union Customs Code and related acts: Regulation (EU) 952/2013 of the European Parliament and Council, Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2015/2446 and (EU) 2015/2447; ·the Recovery Directive 2010/24/EU and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 1189/2011. Some initiatives in Customs (e.g. evolutions of UCC Delegated Acts) or in Excise (e.g. Alcohol duty) are in progress but they do not impact the "do nothing" option of this initiative. In other words, no other initiative is relevant for the status quo. Unless explicitly stated otherwise in the impact assessment (see chapter 6), the consequences of the status quo are assumed to evolve in a linear way with the volume of excise movements or of economic operators concerned by the problem. Some uncertainty lies with this assumption as the volume evolution forecast is not always accurate (especially for currently non-optimally monitored movements) and that it is based on stakeholders' inputs and an EU-wide extrapolation. 1.8.Sources Various sources were used for this impact assessment and their references are provided in ANNEX V. Unless explicitly stated otherwise in the text, figures come from document [R5] "Study contributing to an Impact Assessment on Council Directive 2008/118/EC concerning the general arrangements for excise duty" . Reference documents used in this report are provided in ANNEX V. 2.What is the problem and why is it a problem 2.1.Scope of this initiative Directive 2008/118/EC is seen by most stakeholders as an enormous improvement on its predecessor Directive 92/12/EEC. Changes related to the implementation of Directive 2008/118/EC, particularly EMCS, have saved Member States considerable administrative costs, for example between EUR 27.5 and 37 million in 2014 alone. Economic operators have also expressed their general satisfaction with the new arrangements. So, this initiative does not change the scope of Directive 2008/118/EC.

Nevetherless, several areas for improvement were identified during the evaluation process (see section 1.3): ·Excise – Customs interactions, which consist of three independent categories oExport oExport followed by Transit or the use of a Single Transport Contract (STC) oImport ·Duty Paid Business-to-Business (B2B) ·Low risk movements ·Exceptional situations Excise and customs procedures are not always aligned or synchronised, which creates issues when excise goods are imported or exported. For instance, excise and customs export procedures and related IT systems are not always synchronised. Consequently, when synchronisation fails, Economic Operators have to provide extra documents (the nature and content of which are not harmonised at EU level and depend on each Member State's requirements) to national excise authorities who will then have to check and close manually the related excise or export procedures; only after that can the guarantee can be released. In some situations the excise procedures are cumbersome or vary significantly from one Member State to another. For instance some procedures are entirely paper-based. Moreover, given the high fiscal risk for holding and moving excise goods under duty suspension, which imposes constraints (e.g. high guarantee, tax warehouse, authorisation), these arrangements are mostly used by large companies. SMEs rather use duty paid business-to-business procedures, which are more adapted to small consignments and low numbers of movements (lower guarantee and simpler authorisation but higher per-movement regulatory burden). All this causes extra administrative and compliance cost and effort for Economic Operators as well as for excise and customs authorities, because some steps in the procedures have to be performed manually (which is time- and resource-consuming) and subject to requirements that vary from one Member State to another. Moreover, such steps are a source of tax fraud. Note: some areas for improvement identified in the evaluations or in the Council conclusions (see [R1], [R2] and [R6]) have not been addressed in this Impact Assessment. The justification is provided is Annex VI. Problem tree: 2.2.Excise – Customs interactions: Export 2.2.1.Overview of the current situation When excise goods under duty suspension are exported, an excise movement must first be opened between the Member States of Dispatch and of Export; to do this, the consignor declares the movement to the national excise authorities by lodging an electronic Administrative Document (e-AD) at the Member State of Dispatch. From the Member State of Export, where the customs export declaration is lodged, the supervision of the excise movement under duty suspension continues in parallel with customs supervision, until the external border of the EU. Once the goods have actually exited the EU, the Customs authorities inform the Excise authorities, who close the excise movement in EMCS and end the excise procedure. Example: a wine trading business ("the consignor") in Spain sells wine to a client business in Japan. The consignor has to manage an export of excise goods. He arranges for transport from Spain to Japan via the port of Rotterdam (the Netherlands) where the goods will exit the EU. He lodges accordingly an e-AD at the Spanish excise authorities and provides a guarantee for this movement. Not familiar with the customs export procedure, he uses the services of a customs broker business ("the customs declarant") who will manage all customs formalities on his behalf. The customs declarant chooses to lodge the export declaration in France. In this example, the Member State of Dispatch is Spain, the Member State and Office of Export is France and the Office of Exit is the Netherlands.

No incident occurs during the movement and the goods leave Rotterdam and the EU. The customs Offices of Exit informs the Office of Export of the exit of the goods and the export procedure ends. The Office of Export informs the excise authorities in the Member State of Export and the excise authories inform the Member State of Dispatch, which ends the excise procedure and releases the guarantee. 2.2.2.Problem Analysis Firstly, export movements should be closed in EMCS based on an electronic exit results message from the customs Export Control System (abbreviated as ECS). This message is often not received from the customs authorities and the excise movements have to be examined and closed manually. Secondly, even if the exit results message is received, some exporters do not provide a reference in the export declaration to the Administrative Reference Code (ARC) of the matching excise declaration (e-AD), making it difficult or impossible for the system to apply the exit results to the correct e-AD. Thirdly, exceptional situations in the Customs export procedure (e.g. invalidation of the export declaration; export declaration never lodged) are not always forwarded to the Excise authorities. These weaknesses translate into increased administrative costs for customs and excise administrations. Consequently the advantages of process automation are lost because movements have to be closed manually by matching exit results from ECS to e-ADs from EMCS. Where there is no match the consignor has to be asked to provide an alternative proof of exit, or risk losing the movement guarantee. Moreover, the lack of the ARC in export declarations as well as the absence of systematic cross check between export and excise procedures is a potential source of fraud (e.g. where consignments of excise goods under duty suspension declared for export are actually diverted to the EU's illicit market). Example: re-using the same example as in the previous section. If, after the goods have left the EU, no Exit Results is sent by the Office of Exit or if the exit is not notified to the excise authorities, then the latter have no means to know that the export procedure is complete. Consequently, the excise procedure remains open. At a point in time, the consignor contacts the Spanish excise authorities and he is requested to provide documents ("alternate proof of exit") to prove that the goods have exited the EU. The consignor might have to get the requested documents from his client in Japan, the transporter or another stakeholder in the movement. He then provides the documents to the excise authorities, who end the excise procedure and release the guarantee. If the traders happen to be fraudsters, they may move the goods with a valid e-AD to the Netherlands, lodge an export declaration with a lower quantity than in the e-AD and then fraudulently divert the difference in quantity on a vessel to a high-tax-on-wine Member State such as Ireland or the UK. If there is no data cross-check between customs and excise, the customs officers cannot know that the diverted excise goods should have actually been on a vessel to Japan. Magnitude of the problem Regulatory burden: from the evaluation (see [R1]) Member State authorities and economic operators consider the lack of synchronisation between the excise and export procedures as being problematic. 22 of 27 Member States (80%) were of the opinion that the current arrangements for the movement of excise goods under suspension were not coherent with the arrangements, obligations and procedures applicable to customs operations and export. 41% of traders consider the absence of coherence between the excise and export procedures as being a problem. The respondents stated they were not satisfied with the coordination between excise and customs procedures. Volume: the following table summarises the volume of excise movements with destination export. A "direct" movement in this context means a movement for which the Member State of Dispatch is the same as the Member State of Export (the use of EMCS is not mandatory in this case, although the Member State of Dispatch/Export must be in a position to transfer e-AD data to the Office of Exit and to the competent authorities of any Member State through which the goods pass on request). Number of movements direct indirect Comment total (1000 / year) 1,200 16 Member State with highest volume: France 24%, Germany 13%, The Netherlands 12%, United Kingdom 7% closed automatically < 77% 25% At least 288 000 movements per year are closed manually

Fraud: the estimate for the excise fraud related to this problem area is EUR 28 million per year (see [R5]); however this figure is based on very scarce data and is consequently to be treated with great caution (see section 1.6). Problem tree The following schema summarises the current problem. 2.3.Excise – Customs interactions: Export followed by Transit or using a Single Transport Contract (hereafter: STC) 2.3.1.Overview of the current situation In addition to the combination of EMCS and ECS other procedures are sometimes used to supervise the export of excise goods: the external and internal transit procedure and Single Transport Contracts (STC). It appears that the use of these procedures simplify export operations for economic operators because it allows them to close the export procedure at the start of transit or STC, and therefore completing the movement in EMCS. The Single Transport Contract is a multimodal contract which can be used for the export of goods. Under Article 329(7) of Regulation (EU) n° 2015/2447 the export procedure is closed when STC starts. As of this moment the goods may be taken over under STC by lorry, train, ship or plane and the mode of transport may change several times before the goods physically leave the Union (exception: it is not permissable to use a lorry to cross the external border of the customs territory). Under STC there is no further customs supervision and no customs guarantee. The problem outlined under point 2.3.2. concerns export movements of excise goods through more than one Member State before exiting, i.e. the excise movement starts in one Member State and transits at least one more Member State before the goods exit. If transit or STC is used the excise goods are not covered by EMCS which is closed when the exit is confirmed. In this case exit is confirmed when transit or STC starts and consequently EMCS is closed at that moment, and not when the goods physically leave the Union. The excise guarantee is released in the Member State where EMCS is closed. If the excise goods thereafter transit another Member State before they exit the European Union a guarantee has to cover this part of the movement. This is not provided for by STC arrangements and may not be usable under certain transit arrangements. This means that not only the budget of the Member States where the movement starts is concerned but as well the budget of the Member States through which the goods transit and the budget of the Member State of exit. Under Article 329 (5) – (7) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) n° 2015/2447 (Implementing Act of the Union Customs Code, hereafter: UCC/IA) it is possible to export goods by using the combination of export followed by external or internal transit or export followed by STC. But the simplifications lack a legal base for excise goods in excise law. Under Article 4(6) of Directive 2008/118/EC external transit can only be used instead of EMCS for non-Union goods under excise duty suspension at entry. For export of Union goods the use of external transit is not provided for in this article. Internal transit is not covered at all by Article 4(6). External and internal transit may not be used, after export, instead of EMCS, to move Union excise goods to the place of exit. Article 17(1) (a) (iii) of Directive 2008/118/EC lacks a provision to end a duty suspension arrangement at the Office of exit. Articles 20(2) and 25 of Directive 2008/118/EC require the excise movement to end and its guarantee to be released only when the goods have physically left the territory of the Union. 2.3.2.Problem Analysis Articles 4(6), 17(1) (a) (iii), 20(2) and 25(1) of Directive 2008/118/EC are not in line with the Article 329(5)-(7) UCC/IA as indicated in point 2.3.1. The use of these simplified export procedures may put the financial interests of Member States at risk if the guarantees are released before the goods have exited, proofs of exit are insufficient and supervision is too weak.

Under the Directive the whole movement of excise goods must be secured by a guarantee until the goods exit. Confirmation of physical exit ends the movement and leads to the release of the excise guarantee. In practice, when export is followed by transit or STC, the confirmation of exit is sent by ECS before the physical exit of the goods and the guarantee is released too early. As regards STC the exit message is sent by ECS and EMCS is closed when the goods are taken over by the STC in accordance with Article 333(2)(d) UCC/IA. The goods move on the territory of the Union without any excise or customs supervision. There is no authorisation requirement for the use of STC either. The supervising responsibility lies with the transporter. As regards internal transit, Article 333(2) (c) UCC/IA allows the transmission of the exit message before the transit procedure is discharged. Moreover, the completion of an internal transit procedure in the customs territory of the Union does not prove the exit of goods; indeed, goods under internal transit remain Union goods and customs supervision for the Union goods ends when transit ends. So, after internal transit has ended, the goods might properly leave the territory of the Union, but they might as well stay. If they leave, they do so without any physical proof of exit. When using external transit after export the exit message is also sent when transit starts. The goods move on the customs territory of the Union under customs supervision and under a customs guarantee associated with the external transit procedure. Since the goods become non Union goods when they are placed under external transit, customs supervision only ceases when the goods physically exit. In all cases under Article 329(5) – (7) UCC/IA the excise guarantee under EMCS is released when goods are still moving on the territory of the Union. For external transit a customs guarantee also covers the excise debt until the goods exit because the goods become non-Union goods when placed under external transit. For internal transit a customs guarantee also covers the excise debt, but only until the end of transit, not until the physical exit of goods. For STC there is neither an excise nor a customs guarantee once the goods are taken over under the contract. For the above mentioned reasons, which clearly indicate the fiscal risk of the use of internal transit and STC after the export procedure for excise goods, internal transit and STC are not further examined. Magnitude of the problem Of the total number of export movements in 2016 99% are direct exports (the Member States in which the excise movements begin are the same as the Member States in which they end) and are therefore of national responsibility. This percentage includes the use of external/internal transit and STC, where the goods physically move through other Member States after the sending of exit results. 28% of all exports were carried out using the export procedure followed by external/internal transit and STC (14% external transit, 5 % internal transit, 9 % STC). In these cases EMCS was closed at the start of transit or STC. This figure also includes the possibility that EMCS was not used at all where the excise duty suspension and the export control procedures are completed in the Member State of Dispatch (where excise movement begins), with only the following transit procedure or the STC involving more than one Member State. External transit The study shows that export followed by external transit, replacing EMCS, seems to be common practice (14% of all exports= 229,000 movements); but it shows as well that the customs guarantee lodged for external transit is sufficient to cover the fiscal risk. The answers from economic operators show that external transit after export is currently limited to large companies.

Internal transit The study shows that export followed by internal transit, replacing EMCS, seems to concern only 5% of all export movements (80,000 movements). Six out of 31 interviewed companies used internal transit after export for more than 250 million Euro worth of goods. It is primarily used by Member States having a border with a common transit country (e.g. Switzerland). 50% of economic operators interviewed use internal transit. No SME declared that they used it. The guarantee level seems sufficient as long as the goods move under transit. But once transit ends the Union goods are no longer covered by any guarantee. There is a fiscal risk for internal transit ending in the EU. Single Transport Contract (STC) The study shows that export followed by STC, replacing EMCS, seems to concern only 9% of all export movements (152,000 movements). STC presents a fiscal risk because no excise or customs guarantee covers the movement. The excise guarantee is released when the goods are taken over by the Single Transport Contract. If the growth of 40% in STC movements in 2016 resulted from fraud, it would mean that 1.5% of excise export could have been diverted to the EU market. This, in turn, would result in EUR 21 million losses in excise revenues of EU MS. 12 out of 31 interviewed companies declared the use of STC with excise goods. Four of them exported yearly for more than 250 million Euro worth of goods. All three options under Article 329 (5)-(7) are currently used. The estimated amount of 28% of all export operations (whether direct or indirect) of excise goods represents roughly 461,000 movements. Proportionately external transit is used the most. Fraud: Fraud in transit and STC cannot be observed directly in statistics. Hence, the interviewed Member States and economic operators are not aware of the scale of fraud. 2.4.Excise – Customs interactions: Import 2.4.1.Overview of the current situation At import of excise goods into the EU, the customs declarant may declare that the excise goods will be moved to another Member State under excise duty suspension or be stored under excise duty suspension in a tax warehouse in the Member State of Importation. 2.4.2.Problem Analysis

In the case of storage in a tax warehouse in the same Member State, all procedures are under the sole responsibility of that Member State. In the case of a movement to another Member State, a cross-check between customs import declarations and excise electronic Administrative Documents (e-AD) or the registry of excise economic operators (SEED) is rarely carried out. Therefore it is currently difficult to know if the goods are actually moved under duty suspension after importation. Moreover, there is currently no common list of requirements for excise duty exemption at import. Member States have their national ones and consequently this leads to complexity and confusion for economic operators. Magnitude of the problem Regulatory burden: from the evaluation (see [R1]), economic operators expressed concerns over the arrangements for importation, with 17% having some concerns, mainly due to national variations in reporting requirements causing increased administrative and compliance costs. On the other hand, 19 out of 27 Member States expressed concerns about the lack of coherence between import procedures and the handover to EMCS, indicating that further harmonisation of procedures might help to alleviate administrative burden and compliance costs. From the Surveillance database and the stakeholders' consultation (see [R5]), the volume estimates are as follows: Volume of imports with excise goods moved under duty suspension to another Member State and their share in all imports of excise goods Import declarations share Value of the goods (billion euros) Excise duty15 (billion euros) 2012 18,200 6% n/a n/a 2016 25,860 +42% compared to 2012 8.3% 36.0 2.8 2021 26,900 +4% compared to 2016 9% 37.4 2.9 Fraud: the estimate for the excise fraud related to this problem area is between EUR 20 million (see [R5]) and EUR 50 million per year; the latter figure is extrapolated from the assessed intra-EU fraud pro-rated to the volume of goods moved to another Member State after import. Both figures come from scarce data and are consequently to be taken with caution (see section 1.6). Still, the significantly higher number of movements under duty suspension after import in 2016 than in 2012, which cannot be explained by economic factors, may be an indicator of an increase of fraudulent movements. Problem tree The following schema summarises the current problem. 2.5.Duty Paid Business-to-Business (B2B) 2.5.1.Overview of the current situation The current procedure for moving goods already released for consumption (i.e. for which excise duty has already been paid) between Member States is a paper-based procedure. B2B duty paid movements are covered by a paper document called the Simplified Administrative Accompanying Document (SAAD). It consists of three copies where the first copy is kept by the Economic Operator that initiates the movement of the goods ("the consignor") at the Member State of Dispatch while the two other copies accompany the goods. At destination, excise duty is paid, the second copy is kept by the recipient Economic Operator and the third copy is returned to the Member State of Dispatch, at which point the excise duty at Dispatch may be refunded. 2.5.2.Problem Analysis The procedures for moving excise goods between businesses in different Member States, where excise duties have already been paid (which should be of particular interest for small and medium enterprises), are out of date, unclear and burdensome. In particular, the current procedures are all paper-based and consequently long and inefficient. Other practical problems reported were variations between national requirements (e.g. documentary requirements for reimbursement) as well as a lack of clear information about national procedures, leading to discriminatory situations for businesses.

Magnitude of the problem Regulatory burden: from the evaluation study (see [R2]), it appears that the current arrangements are perceived as burdensome and inefficient by both Member States and Economic Operators. 10 out of 12 Member State administrations perceived the paper-based system as being more burdensome and time-consuming than automated or electronic processes. Three Member States were able to provide some approximate estimates on time spent to handle one average business-to-business (B2B) movement. Average processing time varied between 4 and 8 hours depending on the nature of the consignment. This compares with a few minutes on average for the administration of an EMCS movement. Well over half of the B2B Economic Operators surveyed had already chosen not to move their products between Member States due to the current arrangements. The main reasons cited were high administrative costs (36 Economic Operators out of 44 who replied) and unclear requirements leading to legal uncertainty (21 Economic Operators out of 44). The majority of Economic Operators considered the duty paid B2B arrangements to be more burdensome than using EMCS. As summarised in the table here below, the duty paid B2B procedures are much less used than the duty suspension ones. Indeed, economic operators and movements represent about 3% of the number of excise Economic Operator and movements that use the duty suspension procedures. Duty Paid B2B procedures are mostly used for alcohol products and represent an even smaller part of the total value of excise goods moved cross-border within the EU. Number % Comment Number of Economic Operators 6350 3.0% SME use mostly outbound movements

Large companies use both in- and outbound movements Number of Movements / y 100,000 3.0% 2021 forecast: +6% compared to 2016 Member State with highest volume: France 7%, The Netherlands 7%, Germany 5% Goods value (million euros / y) 200 0.1% 90% of Duty Paid B2B movements are with Alcohol Fraud: the available data on excise fraud via Duty Paid B2B come from scarce Member State inputs and is assessed at EUR 20 million per year (see section 1.6 and ANNEX IV). This is much higher than for duty suspension procedures, proportionally to the value of the goods. Problem tree The following schema summarises the current problem. 2.6.Low Risk Movements All current procedures for moving excise goods between businesses in different Member States have some significant cost(s) and effort overhead. They may also take some time during which the goods cannot be moved or released, and the guarantee is immobilised. These procedures apply to all movements of goods, even the ones for which the amount of excise duty and the fiscal risk are low. In particular, certain goods, such as completely denatured alcohol or certain energy products, are either exempt from excise duty, are taxed at very low rates or are sold in quantities where the excise duty charged is small in comparison with the economic value of the goods. Moreover, Member States currently seem to make little use of Article 31, because of the difficulties of negotiating bilateral or multilateral schemes. Low risk movements are defined for the purpose of this option as consignments whose excise duty is less than 1000€ or than 20% of the net value of the goods. However, the study contributing to the impact assessment highlighted that: ·the definition of "low risk" generated confusion in the Member States; ·the magnitude of the problem was uncertain as two analysis led to very different results; ·several Member States reckoned the fiscal risk was far from negligible and are very reluctant to allow simplifications for these movements.

Definition of low risk products The vast majority of respondents, especially those from MSAs, had significant problems estimating both the number of low-risk movements and the excise duty concerned. In fact, only six out of the 19 MS that responded to the question were able to provide any kind of answer. The most important obstacles were the lack of clarity as to what kind of movements should be classified as “low risk” or the belief that no movement of goods could be considered “low risk” (Latvia explicitly reported 0 movements of the type). The analysis of the answers provided by the MSAs suggests that despite the fact that a definition of “low-risk movements” was provided in the questionnaire, the understanding of what constitutes a “low-risk product” is not clear (for instance, the Netherlands does not consider beer a low-risk good, nor does Poland consider denatured alcohol a low-risk good). In fact, “low-risk movements” vary from country to country, and the term is in itself very controversial. The data provided by Economic Operators in questionnaires suggest that, on average, low-risk movements constituted between 1.6% and 2.2% of all their movements. In terms of excise duty, its value within Economic Operator’s low-risk movements fell between 0.4% and 2.4% of the value of excise on all movements performed by Economic Operators. Furthermore, economic operators did not believe that there would be any substantial growth in the number of low risk movements in the next five years. Some Economic Operators supported this simplification but others mentioned its optionality and the fact that it introduced another type of arrangement for moving excise goods between Member States did not make it very attractive. To test the approach a VAT-like arrangement for goods was suggested where the excise duty due was less than or equivalent to 20% (used as a proxy for the VAT rate). Using Intrastat data, the contractor was able to estimate that in 2015, the value of the low-risk intra-Union supply of goods such as wine and beer (CN2203, CN2204, CN2205, CN2206)—that is, the supply of goods between countries in which the value of excise duty on these goods was below the 20% threshold—amounted to approximately 46.1% of the value of the total intra-Union supply of alcoholic beverages. The value of the low-risk intra-Union acquisition of these goods was estimated to amount to approximately 23.3% of the value of entire intra-Union supply of alcoholic beverages. However, these estimates are based on a comparison between the excise duty due in the Member State of supply compared with the VAT burden, but not on the excide duty rates of the Member State where the products are consumed, nor the excise rates for these products for Member States though which these goods are moved on their way to their destination. Therefore the high percentage of the volume of these products is more a result of the analysis method, than a real estimate of the possible usefulness of simplifying procedures associated with these goods. Still, it appears that the perception of low risk is dependent on excise duty rates. For example, there is a strong correlation between being a wine producing Member State and having a low or zero excise duty rate on wine. Conversely there is also a strong correlation between not being a producer Member State or being a consumer Member State and having a high rate of duty on wine, e.g. Finland has an excise duty rate of EUR 3.39 per litre of still wine, and Ireland has a rate of EUR 4.24 per litre. This makes such a simplification popular in producer Member States and very unpopular in non-producer, consumer Member States. The option for low risk movements was however not supported by several Member States due to the difficulty to unambiguously define "low risk," as the excise duty rate and consequently the fiscal risk varies greatly from one Member State to another. Moreover, under the existing arrangements it is still open to neighbouring low risk countries to make bilateral agreements. Therefore despite the initial attractiveness of an arrangement for low value or low risk goods there appears to be little justification in exploring this particular option further. 2.7.Exceptional Situations 2.7.1.Overview of the current situation Exceptional situations may occur during the movement of excise goods under duty suspension: ·Shortage: the quantity of goods that arrived at destination is lower than the quantity declared at dispatch (e.g. due to part of the goods being diverted during the transport or due to natural evaporation of volatile goods); ·Excess: the quantity of goods that arrived at destination is higher than the quantity declared at dispatch (e.g. due to an input error when declaring the goods at Dispatch); ·Rejection: the consignee informed the National Authorities and the consignor that he refuses to take any responsibility for the goods (e.g. because he did not order them); ·Interruption: a National Authority cancelled the movement of excise goods (e.g. after a control or a total destruction of the goods). Moreover a significant quantity of some type of goods might evaporate during transport or storage (e.g. evaporation losses in petrol tanks), which causes a "natural shortage" or a "natural loss".

These situations are not all described in detail in the legislation, which leads to different procedures and rules being used in different Member States and consequently to complexity and confusion for Economic Operators. For instance, different Member States may have different ways to assess shortages and excesses and different thresholds for allowable natural losses. They may also have different ways of dealing with rejections, interruptions or in a review of a public authority's decision (i.e. when an organisation disagrees with a decision of a public authority, aka "right to be heard"). 2.7.2.Problem Analysis Uncommon, exceptional situations represent a high regulatory burden to Economic Operators. Depending on the country, exceptional situations may lead to irregularities, duty claims, penalties or seizure of the goods. The current ambiguities in exceptional situations have the following consequences: ·Dispute: the details of an electronic administrative document (e-AD) cannot be amended once the latter has been accepted by the Member State of Dispatch, leading to disputes about quantities and excise duty payable. While national jurisdictions usually provide some recourse ("right to be heard") when adverse decisions are made, the ease of challenging such decisions in the field of excise seems to vary greatly. ·Recovery: claims against economic operators may make use of the provisions of Directive 2010/24/EU (the Recovery Directive) if other requests for payment of excise duty are unsuccessful. The use of the instruments provided by the Recovery Directive among Member States varies. In some cases they are not used at all. Moreover, there is no clear basis for linking recovery instruments with a previous establishment of an excise duty liability. ·Follow Up: once an exceptional situation has occurred, it is unclear what follow up actions (e.g. return rejected goods to the location of dispatch) must or shoud be undertaken by the consignor or other stakeholder involved in the movement. Magnitude of the problem Regulatory burden: even though exceptional situations represent a small part of all movements of excise goods, the related administrative burden and compliance or hassle costs are quite significant as illustrated in the table below. Movements Value of goods Comment Number % M€ % Current volume / year Interruptions 3,400 0.11 Source: EMCS statistics Rejections 600 0.02 Excesses/Shortages 240,000 8 54 0.02 Source: [R5]; amount of shortages 2021 forecast Member States +5% +13 to 29% Compared to 2016 Economic Operators stable stable Note: Member State expect a significant increase of exceptional situations in the next five years while Economic Operators consider they will remain at a similar level as currently. Cross-border recovery issues are mostly due to lack of guarantee on a disputed movement, lack of familiarity with recovery tools or language; no data from Member States is available on the volume of the recovery issues for excise, such as the amount of excise duty to be recovered in another member State. 3.Why should the EU act The EU’s right to act in the area of excise duties is established in Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which permits the EU to lay down harmonised rules in order to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market. For many years the Commission has worked with Member States in harmonising and simplifying customs and tax administrative procedures, because there is a common understanding that such initiatives are both useful and necessary to the functioning of the Single Market. The Commission's work in the area of excise harmonisation has been facilitated by financial instruments agreed by the European Parliament and the Council. Up until 2014 the financial instrument in use was Fiscalis 2013. The use of this instrument was evaluated and a Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The evaluation concluded that the Fiscalis 2013 programme contributed to reducing regulatory costs in three ways: (i) through standardising the exchange of information between tax administration (e.g. through e-forms), (ii) by providing platforms for secured exchange (i.e. the interoperability platform with all IT applications therein anchored), and (iii) by providing common IT systems to be used directly by the tax administrations (e.g. the EMCS or the VIES). The stakeholders consulted within the evaluation were not able to identify any national or international alternatives to the close collaboration facilitated by Fiscalis 2013, which could have delivered a similar or higher reduction of regulatory cost to national administrations and economic operators. The scenario of achieving similar levels of cooperation acting bilaterally or multilaterally with EU involvement was considered inconceivable by stakeholders. The Commission’s role of a coordinator and facilitator was also recognised by stakeholders and it was recommended that it should be continued. Similar conclusions were reached by stakeholders in relation to IT systems: many of the IT systems are not just a ‘nice-to-haves’ but they are actually underpinning legislation (e.g. the EMCS or the requirements of the legislation on administrative cooperation) and their discontinuance would put a strain on the compliance with the EU tax acquis. In this impact assessment, 70 to 83% of the respondents in the stakeholders' consultation consider an EU action is useful or necessary (see also ANNEX II), which reinforces the general conclusions from the evaluation of Fiscalis 2013.

The general conclusions from the Fiscalis 2013 evaluation concerning the need for EU action can be applied to the specific policy options being examined here. Alignment with Customs Procedures Customs and excise legislation should be aligned. Legal certainty at EU level reduces administrative burden and compliance costs for economic operators and Member States authorities and reduces the fiscal risk. An absence of action at EU level will basically leave the situation as-is, where different Member State implement different rules, which creates confusion to economic operators and increases their costs. Currently there are no EU wide arrangements in place which allow for the the hand-of between customs and excise procedures. This leads to a lack of legal certainty and inevitably increased costs, both for economic operators and for competent authorities. Individual national solutions are possible, but confront economic operators with different national requirements, thereby distorthing the Single Market. Duty Paid B2B The current paper-based procedures for the Duty Paid B2B movements share the weaknesses of the previous paper-based system for the movement of excise goods under duty suspension (i.e. no real time monitoring, unclear reporting requirements, vulnerability to fraud and frequent delays in the release of guarantees as well as in the refund process) have to be improved and simplified. National improvements, such as national registration of economic operators and national automation of movement control are of little use since the goods are already released for consumptions when they are dispatched. Only improved EU-wide coordination of arrangements has anadded value due to the need to share common data and to use common interoperability standards betten data from different Member States. Exceptional Situations Lack of a common action at EU level increases costs to both national authorities when dealing with situation that involve more than one Member State and also to economic operators because of the use of different national rules. 4.What should be achieved 4.1.General objectives The general objectives of the initiative are: ·To ensure the proper functioning of the internal market – by reducing obstacles to intra-EU cross-border trade. ·To safeguard the financial interests of the Member States – by ensuring that excise duty due are properly collected to feed national budgets. In pursuing these objectives, the initiative seeks to keep a balance between the need to facilitate cross-border trade and the need to ensure that effective controls are in place in order to monitor the holding and movement of excise goods, and ultimately to ensure the excise debt is collected (owing to the risk inherent in cross-border movements of excise goods; see section 1.1). 4.2.Specific objectives The specific objectives of the initiative are: ·To reduce tax obstacles by minimising costs for businesses and administrations Tax obstacles can be removed and administrative and hassle costs for business and administration can be reduced by simplifying the current procedures and by automation (e.g. duty paid business to business procedures), which increases productivity of staff, makes processing faster and immobilises guarantees for a shorter period of time. ·To establish a clear and consistent framework for free movement of goods A clear and consistent framework for the free movement of excise goods can be achieved by synchronising better excise and customs procedures, harmonizing current movement and holding procedures and defining common rules at EU level. This shall reduce confusion and complexity for Member States and economic operators;

·To ensure equal treatment for businesses (neutral competition) Equal treatment ensures that each Member State does not directly or indirectly discriminate against Economic Operators from other Member States by treating them differently. The only example within the scope of Directive 2008/118/EC is the national obligation to appoint a fiscal representative for distance selling, which is not within the scope of this initiative; ·To allow the proper monitoring of movements of excise goods The monitoring of the movement and holding of excise goods can be improved by further automation (e.g. automation of duty paid business to business procedures); ·To reduce illicit trade, evasion and abuse (fraud) The proper monitoring of the movement and holding of excise goods, more data cross-checks and increasing data quality and consistency contribute to the reduction of fraud. Even though the amount of excise duty fraud in the scope of this initiative, estimated to about EUR 480 million per year (see 1.6), represents only a fraction of the excise duty, it is still a significant amount in absolute value, worth reducing. The following schema illustrates which specific objectives meet which general objectives. 4.3.Linking the objectives to the problems Specific objectives Link to the problems To reduce tax obstacles by minimising costs for businesses and administrations Addresses the problems of excise-export interactions, duty paid business-to-business and exceptional situations (see 2.2, 2.5 and 2.7) To establish a clear and consistent framework for free movement of goods Addresses all problems described in this initiative To allow the proper monitoring of movements of excise goods Addresses the problems of excise - customs interactions, duty paid business-to-business (see 2.2 to 2.5) To reduce illicit trade, evasion and abuse (fraud) Addresses the problems of excise – customs interactions and of duty paid business-to-business (see 2.2 to 2.5) 4.4.Assessment criteria All solutions (policy options) envisaged to fix the problems are assessed based on the following criteria: ·Regulatory costs and benefits –

benefits can be direct benefits or cost savings; in most cases, the costs and benefits are quantified; in the rare cases where not enough data is available, a qualitative* assessment is used for comparing policy options. The following split of regulatory costs and benefits is available in this report: oAdministrative costs and benefits for Member States oEnforcement costs and benefits for Member States oRegulatory costs and benefits for Economic Operators This criterion is used for assessing if specific objectives "reduce tax obstacles by minimising costs" and "establish a clear and consistent framework for free movement of goods" are reached. ·Market and SMEs – this criterion assesses the impact on the market of trading excise goods and on the excise business of Small & Medium Enterprises; a qualitative* assessment is used for comparing policy options.

This criterion is used for assessing if specific objectives "reduce tax obstacles by minimising costs" and "establish a clear and consistent framework for free movement of goods" are reached. · Fraud – this criterion assesses the impact on the fight against excise fraud; some figures are provided in the impact assessment text of chapter 8; however these figures are based on scarce data and are treated with caution; hence when comparing policy options, only a qualitative* assessment is used. This criterion is used for assessing if specific objectives "reduce illicit trade, evasion and abuse" and "allow the proper monitoring of movements of excise goods" are reached. ·Effectiveness and Efficiency – these criteria assess how cost-effective policy options are and how well they would actually address the problem; a qualitative* assessment is made, actually consolidating the assessment of the previous criteria (regulatory costs and benefits, market & SMEs, fraud). These criteria are used for all specific objectives. * Qualitative assessments use a series of '-' minus (for negative impact) and '+' plus signs (for positive impact). A higher number of '+' or '-' means that, within a given problem area, an option has a more positive or negative impact respectively than others. 4.5.Consistency with other EU policies and with the Charter for fundamental rights The main objectives of the initiative are lowering regulatory costs for Member States and for Economic Operators trading excise goods across the EU and reducing cross-border excise fraud. Reducing administrative burdens, particularly for SMEs, is also an important objective highlighted in the EU’s growth strategy for the coming decade (Europe 2020 – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth). As excise duty and VAT are usually collected at the same time and location, the policy options of this initiative propose a similar approach to VAT, wherever applicable and possible given the inherent fiscal risk of excise goods. It would also be consistent with the EU objectives under REFIT. The objectives envisaged do not affect fundamental rights. 5.What are the various options to achieve the objectives 5.1.Excise – Customs interactions: Export Several policy options are envisaged: ·Option 1: Do nothing (baseline) ·Option 2: Data cross-check ·Option 3: Automated process synchronisation ·Option 4: EU common list of Alternate Proofs of Exit They are summarised in the figure here below and detailed here after.

5.1.1.Option 1: Do nothing (baseline) This policy option leaves the current situation as-is. 5.1.2.Option 2: Data cross-check This policy option is a systematic cross-check of data between the customs export declarations and the excise declarations (e-AD), which aims at reducing fraud. The data cross-check may be automated or manual, up to each Member State's decision. This option would be mandatory for indirect movements of excise goods with destination export and recommended for direct movements. This policy option would oblige the declarant to provide the reference of the excise movement (aka Administrative Reference Code) and of its consignor (aka SEED number) in the export declaration. Two types of data cross-checks are proposed and assessed. The first one verifies that the ARC and SEED numbers referred to in the export declaration exist in the excise systems and are valid, on a per-export-declaration basis. The second type would be a more thorough cross-check, which, in addition to the above, would also verify on a per-export-declaration basis that the goods descriptions in the export declaration and in the excise e-AD are consistent. The consequences of a mismatch, such as encouraging the export declarant to correct mistakes (if any), refusing the export release or claiming excise duty, would be up to each Member State according to their national policy and risk analysis. 5.1.3.Option 3: Automated process synchronisation This policy option automates the synchronisation of the movements' status between excise and customs IT systems, which aims at reducing the administrative burden of movements' manual closures, as well as the duration of an excise movement with export. This automated synchronisation would automatically close EMCS movements (and release the excise guarantee) when positive exit results are provided by the Customs Office of Exit. It would also allow to take EMCS corrective action (e.g. change of destination) when the export declaration is invalidated or is never lodged. This option would be mandatory for indirect31 movements of excise goods with destination export and recommended for direct movements. 5.1.4.Option 4: EU common list of Alternate Proofs of Exit This policy option would legally establish a common list of documents that would be accepted as an alternate proof of exit of goods by the national excise authorities. Given the high fiscal risk related to excise goods, this list would be a subset of the one accepted by the Customs authorities (see UCC Implementing Act (EU) 2015/2447 Article 335(4)). 5.2.Excise – Customs interactions: Export followed by Transit or using STC The following policy options are envisaged: · Option 1: Do nothing (baseline) ·Option 2: Authorise the use of external transit after the export procedure for Union excise goods 5.2.1.Option 1: Do nothing (baseline)

This policy option leaves the current situation as-is. 5.2.2.Option 2: Authorise the use of external transit after the export procedure for excise Union goods This policy option allows economic operators to use a simplified way to export excise goods by using the external transit procedure after export instead of using EMCS until the external border. This policy option would provide adequate guarantee management and would prevent goods from disappearing at destination, as the goods, which have become non-Union goods with the start of external transit, would be under customs supervision until the goods exit the customs territory. The transit guarantee covers the excise debt under Article 226(1) (b) of Regulation (EU) n° 952/2013. However, this option would imply an amendment to Article 189 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 in order to include the possibility to place Union excise goods under external transit. Articles 4(6), 17(1)(a)(iii), 20(2) and 25(1) of Directive 2008/118/EC would need to be amended in order to allow the use of external transit instead of EMCS to move the goods until the external border. 5.2.3.Discarded options Internal transit and the Single Transport contract (STC) do not present an option because they are inherently too risky. Whereas economic operators may use external transit, internal transit and STC after the export procedure to take the goods out of the customs territory of the Union under Article 329(5)-(7) or Reg. (EU) n° 2015/2447, only external transit would be considered a fiscally safe solution for excise goods. Goods placed under internal transit, in accordance with Article 329(6) of Regulation (EU) n° 2015/2447, do not have this fiscal security. The excise guarantee would be released at the start of transit by the Office of Exit which is at the same time the Office of Departure for transit and not when the goods leave the EU. Goods remain Union goods. Where the internal transit procedure ends in the customs territory of the Union, the customs supervision ends and no physical proof of exit exists. If goods disappear after the end of the transit procedure it will be difficult to recover the excise debt. Where the internal transit ends in a common transit country the New Computerized Transit System (NCTS) confirms arrival in that country, but exit is certified at the start of transit by the office of exit which is at the same time the office of departure for transit. For goods placed under STC, in accordance with Article 329(7) of Regulation (EU) n° 2015/2447, the excise guarantee would be released when the goods are taken over under this contract because this is the moment when exit is confirmed. The goods would move through the EU without customs supervision and no customs guarantee. Since it is a multimodal contract, it is even common that modes of transport change whilst the goods transit several Member States before leaving the EU. If goods disappear before they leave the EU it will be difficult to recover the excise debt. Excise goods placed under external transit, where authorised by customs law, would become non Union goods and would be under customs supervision. The customs guarantee ensures as well the excise duties. Changing the general rules for the use of internal transit and STC after export only for excise goods in order to render these procedures fiscally safe would be unproportioned. However, in order to allow the use of external transit after export for excise goods only one Article in the customs legislation (Article 189 of Regulation (EC) n° 2015/2448) needs to be modified. A legal proposal to change this article is currently in Inter-service Consultation at the Commission. 5.3.Excise – Customs interactions: Import The following policy options are envisaged: ·Option 1: Do nothing (baseline) ·Option 2: Data cross-check 5.3.1.Option 1: Do nothing (baseline) This policy option leaves the current situation as-is. 5.3.2.Option 2: Data cross-check In order to help reduce fraud, this policy option envisages the mandatory addition of a few data items (SEED numbers and ARC) at import and to systematically cross-check some data between the customs import declarations and the excise e-AD. Three types of cross-checks are being considered.

The first, an data cross-check, would require SEED numbers of the consignor and of the consignee to be included in the import declaration and would cross-check their existence and validity automatically on a per-import-declaration basis.

The second data cross check is in addition to the one above, would require the EMCS movement's Administrative Reference Code (ARC) to be included in the import declaration and would cross-check its existence and validity automatically on a per-import-declaration basis; this requires new interactions between the national import system and the national excise application of EMCS.

The third and most advanced data cross-check, in addition to the two above, would also verify, on a per-import-declaration basis, that the goods description in the import declaration and in the excise e-AD is consistent. The data cross-checks may be automated or manual, up to each Member State's decision.

This policy option would also establish common requirements for moving excise goods under duty suspension after import; these requirements would be similar to the ones used for importing goods under VAT exemption. 5.4.Duty Paid Business-to-Business The following policy options are envisaged: ·Option 1: Do nothing (baseline) ·Option 2: Registration of Economic Operators ·Option 3: Automation of Duty Paid B2B processes by extending EMCS 5.4.1.Option 1: Do nothing (baseline) This policy option leaves the current situation as-is. 5.4.2.Option 2: Registration of Economic Operators Under this policy option the duty paid B2B economic operators will be registered in a central register. The registration of the duty paid B2B movement will be available via extension of SEED – System for the Exchange of Excise Data currently used for the registration and authorisation data of duty suspension movements, by adding new economic operators involved in a duty paid procedure. It is assumed that the registration process will be lighter, such as a VAT-number-based registration. It will be the responsibility of the Member State Administration to register in the central register all traders that, after the fulfilment of necessary conditions, are allowed to use duty paid B2B procedures. The creation of a common registration system will allow Member States other than the Member State of Registration to check information about the economic operator in question and therefore facilitate controls and administrative cooperation. In an automated environment the registration number is necessary to identify the economic operator in the computerised system unambiguously. 5.4.3.Option 3: Automation of Duty Paid B2B processes by extending EMCS This option, in addition to the previous one (registration of economic operators in a central register), would automate the B2B duty paid procedures, EU-wide. In other words, the current paper-based procedures would be replaced by computer-based ones, by extending EMCS to B2B duty paid movements, processes, data and rules. More specifically, to enable the proper operation of the enhancement EMCS, SEED must contain the information about duty paid B2B Economic Operators. 5.5.Exceptional Situations The following policy options are envisaged: ·Option 1: Do nothing (baseline) ·Option 2: Specify a common approach supported by legislation and guidelines 5.5.1.Option 1: Do nothing (baseline) This policy option leaves the current situation as-is.

A number of issues regarding exceptional situations (estimated to occur during approximately 4.6% excise movements) currently exist, causing increased risk of fraud, administrative burden for Member States, and uncertainty and risk of penalties (as well as certain administrative costs) for the Economic Operators. Finally, related to the issue of exceptional situations is the uncertainty regarding the processing of recovering duties from an Economic Operator residing in another Member State. This was considered a problem by a number of Member States, although they were not able to provide any numerical values regarding the costs borne. 5.5.2.Option 2: Specify a common approach supported by legislation and guidelines Description This policy option is a set of changes, which would ·enhance the current excise IT systems and support them with a more detailed legal base via amendments to Directive 2008/118/EC or to implementing regulations; or ·provide guidance and better inform Member States and economic operators of the existing EU legislation on metrology. Quantitative assessment for shortages and excesses: the Commission would provide information on the applicability of EU metrology directives and of the necessity of using certified equipment when measuring quantities of excise goods: the metrology directives are there to ensure quantities are measured in a common way in all Member States and are already in force; consequently there is no need for any legislation action. Introduction of compulsory reports in case of destructions, losses, and/or thefts during movements: this option would require Economic Operators to inform their national excise authorities when such an event occurs; it would make a contribution towards the fight against fraud. Allowable losses: a set of standardised allowable loss thresholds would be developed for each type of excisable good. The rules would recognise that different tolerance thresholds may be needed not only depending on the nature of the good itself, but also on the way in which it is moved as well as atmospheric conditions in the country/countries at the time when the goods in question are under transport (e.g. humidity and air temperature). Right to be heard: the concept of the ‘Right to be Heard’, similar to the one written into the Union Customs Code, would be introduced in Directive 2008/118/EC. The Union Customs Code (Art. 22(6)), Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (Articles 8 and 10) and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 (Articles 8 and 9) state that a person (or an economic operator) has a right to be heard whenever customs authorities “intend to take a decision—following an application or not—that would adversely affect the person to whom the decision is addressed” and establishes time limits and exemptions from the requirement, and the procedures to be followed in implementing this requirement. There is currently no equivalent in the Directive 2008/118/EC. Most importantly, the ease of making representation or challenging adverse decisions in the field of excise seems to vary greatly between individual national jurisdictions. The introduction of a common “right to be heard” in cases of suspected shortages or excesses, uniform across the EU, was, therefore, suggested to reduce uncertainty for economic operators and administrative burdens for Member States. In terms of benefits expected from the introduction of the standard right to be heard, EOs mentioned “consistency across MS when dealing with intra-EU movements”, legal certainty, transparency, and uniformity of legal procedures throughout the EU, more opportunities to explain themselves in case of a dispute, and decreased administrative burden. Enhanced EMCS procedures to support the right to be heard: as part of the implementation of the right to be heard the current processes in the excise IT systems would be enhanced and given a legal base by the above. EMCS currently provides optional support for communication with economic operators about discrepancies reported on the receipt of excise goods. An implementing or delegated provision, based on Directive 2008/118/EC, would support the exchange of data relevant to exceptions between concerned Member States and economic operators, thereby supporting the right to be heard. It would also provide a basis for collecting agreed data relevant to potential claims, which could also be used as information for notification and recovery instruments under the Recovery Directive. 6.What are the impacts of the different policy options 6.1.Excise – Customs interactions: Export 6.1.1.Do nothing (baseline) Over the next five years both Member States and Economic Operators expect a total increase of 2% of the number of manually closed excise movements with destination export. The share of manually closed movements is expected to decrease slightly (from 23% in 2016 to 21% in 2021). Consequently, the problem will slightly worsen as Member States' administrative costs, Economic Operators' hassle costs and fraud are expected to increase by 2% in absolute value over the next five years. No significant changes in the market structure are envisaged over the next five years. 6.1.2.Data cross-check

This option would require Economic Operators to provide extra information (references to excise documents, i.e. ARC for the declaration of the excise movement and SEED numbers for the authorisations of moving excise goods) in each export declaration. This increases the compliance costs to an EU-wide amount assessed at 6.61 million over 5 years, i.e. at about EUR 1.32 million per year. Out of 18 Economic Operators in the targeted stakeholders' consultation that replied to the question, 18 and 9 considered a data cross check of references and of goods desription should be introduced respectively. In the Open Public Consultation, 68% of the respondents who provided an anwer considered data cross-check useful or very useful. This option would also require an evolution of Member States customs and excise IT systems to implement the data cross-checks, which increases their enforcement costs. Based on an analysis of impacted IT tasks and messages (see Annex IV) and on replies from three Member States in the stakeholders' consultation, the total cost of the IT systems over five years is assessed EU-wide at EUR 8.68 and 33.6 million for the checking of references (ARC and SEED numbers) and of goods description respectively. On the other hand, extrapolating EU-wide the replies from five Member States in the stakeholders' consultation, the automation of data cross-checks would reduce the customs authorities' administrative costs by EUR 725,000 per year. As highlighted by Member States replies to the stakeholders' consultation, data cross-checks would help reduce fraud, with the more advanced cross-check having a more positive impact on fraud reduction. This impact is difficult to quantify however as very few MS provided an opinion. Out of 18 Member States that replied to the question, 17 and 15 considered a data cross check of references and of goods desription should be introduced respectively. This option is not expected to have any impact on the market or on SMEs, as most Economic Operators involved in export are large companies. Even though they may vary significantly depending on each member State's IT architecture, legacy systems, etc. the enforcement costs are still quite uniformly distributed among Member States as the requirements and IT implementation effort are similar. However, the benefits will be higher for Member States with high excise duty rates (i.e. which have a higher risk of excise fraud) or a high volume of movements. 6.1.3.Automated process synchronisation This option requires an evolution of Member States' customs and excise IT systems to synchronise processes between excise and export applications, which increases their enforcement costs. Based on an analysis of impacted IT tasks and messages (see Annex IV), the total cost of the IT systems over five years is assessed EU-wide at EUR 67.2 million. This high cost is due to a quite high number of IT processes, tasks and messages that have to be modified on both excise and export IT systems. It reduces administrative costs for Member States and hassle costs for Economic Operators. Extrapolating the replies in the stakeholders' consultation, the yearly cost savings are assessed EU-wide at EUR 2.64 million for Member States and EUR 2.57 million for Economic Operators. This option is not expected to have any impact on the market or on SMEs. The enforcement costs are distributed quite uniformly among Member States as the requirements and IT implementation effort are similar. However, the benefits will be higher for Member States with a high volume of movements. It must be noted that the automated synchronisation of the excise and export processes brings benefits only if exit results are sent by the Office of Exit, which is not at all the case currently. Otherwise, both export and excise procedures will remain open anyway, waiting for the exit of the goods to be notified. Out of 17 Member States and 21 Economic Operators in the targeted stakeholders' consultation, 16 and 21 respectively considered the automation of process synchronisation should be introduced. 6.1.4.EU common list of Alternate Proofs of Exit This option has a negligible cost and provides great benefits by reducing legal uncertainty and process complexity, for Economic Operators and Member States alike. Based on the replies from the stakeholders' consultation, the administrative cost savings for Member States is assessed EU-wide at about EUR 870,000 per year and the compliance cost savings for Economic Operators at EUR 1.31 million per year. For the latter this represents a cost saving of about EUR 4.9 per movement. This option might have a slightly positive impact on SMEs and on the market by reducing the learning curve on documents to be accepted across the EU and consequently making the processing of manually closed excise movements easier and faster. Out of 19 Member States and 23 Economic Operators in the targeted stakeholders' consultation, 16 and 20 respectively considered a common list of Alternate Proofs of Exit should be introduced. 6.2.Excise – Customs interactions: Export followed by Transit or using STC 6.2.1.Do nothing (baseline) Financial impact:

- Administrative costs for Member States' administrations (+13.1% in absolute terms over 5 years): Administrative costs will grow in line with the number of movements. The number of external transit movements is expected to increase by 28.9%, internal transit to decrease by 7% and STC movements will stay roughly unchanged. - Enforcement costs for Member States' administrations (0): No substantial enforcement costs are envisaged. - Administrative, compliance and hassle costs for economic operators (+13.1% in absolute terms over 5 years): Costs borne by economic operators will grow proportionally with the number of movements. The number of external transit movements is expected to increase by 28.9%, internal transit to decrease by 7%, whereas the number of STC movements will stay roughly unchanged. - Impact on fraud (0): If internal and external transit and STC continue to be used after export, fraudsters will continue abusing the system. Using STC in Member States where guarantees were not lodged for STC may cost Member States EUR 21 million per year. - Market effects on SMEs Efficiency (0): No changes in the market structure over the next five years are envisaged. Impact of missing legal alignment of excise and customs legislation: Some Member States would continue to allow the use of external and/or internal transit and/or STC without having a legal base in excise law, others would not. The "do nothing" option would contribute to the lack of legal and procedural certainty for Economic Operators. 6.2.2.Authorise the use of external transit after the export procedure for excise Union goods Financial impact - Administrative costs for Member States' administrations (+14, 2% in absolute terms over 5 years): Administrative costs will grow in line with the number of movements (the administrative costs being similar for internal and external transit and STC). The number of external transit movements is expected to be 14.2% higher than the number of internal and external transit and STC today. - Enforcement costs for Member States' administrations (0): No substantial enforcement costs are envisaged. Directive 2008/118/EC and its implementing regulations and in the UCC/IA and UCC/DA need to be modified. No changes in the existing excise and transit systems, are needed. However the prohibition of the use of internal transit and STC for excise goods need to be reflected in the national export systems; no data is available and it is expected to lead to very limited costs. - Administrative, compliance and hassle costs for economic operators (+):

In general, the costs borne by economic operators will grow proportionally with the number of movements. The number of external transit movements is expected to be 14.2% higher than the number of internal and external transit and STC today. However, due to increased legal certainty, hassle costs will go down, and so will be the per movement burden on economic operators. For Economic Operators this option would not entail learning costs since most of them, also the ones using internal transit and STC, use external transit already. - Impact on fraud (++): Covering with sufficient guarantee all movements with destination export will substantially reduce fraud especially in Member States, where guarantees are not lodged for STC. Compared with dynamic baseline scenario, gains of EUR 21 million per year could be envisaged. Since there are no large enforcement cost envisaged, eliminating fraud by the analyzed policy option would be cost-effective. - Market effects on SMEs Efficiency (0): No direct impact envisaged. Indirect impact on market price through fraud reduction could be expected. Impact of legal alignment of excise and customs legislation by allowing the use of export followed by external transit The possibility to use external transit instead of EMCS will facilitate trade whilst securing the excise debt. Currently already 14% of all exports are carried out by using external transit. Customs legislation, i.e. Article 189 UCC/DA, has to be modified in order to allow excise Union goods to be placed under external transit. Excise legislation, i.e. Articles 4(6), 17(1)(a)(iii), 20(2) and 25(1) has to be modified in order to allow the use of external transit at export, to allow for the office of exit to become an excise destination and in order to convey the responsibility to secure the excise debt to the external transit procedure. The alignment of the two legislations would create legal certainty for the traders. It would as well allow for uniform application of law. The option would constitute a choice. The Economic Operators would be able to chose between the use of export followed by external transit and the normal export procedure without the use of external transit. 6.3.Excise – Customs interactions: Import 6.3.1.Do nothing (baseline) The number of movements of excise goods under duty suspension after import is expected to increase by 4% from 2016 to 2021 and their share in all imports to increase from 8.3% to 9% (see section 2.2). Consequently, the problem will slightly worsen as Member States' administrative costs, Economic Operators' hassle costs and fraud are expected to increase over the next five years in the same proportion as the number of movements. No changes in the market structure are envisaged over the next five years. 6.3.2.Data cross-check This option would require Economic Operators to provide extra information (references to excise documents, i.e. ARC for the declaration of the excise movement and SEED numbers for the authorisations of moving excise goods) in each import declaration. Based on the replies to the stakeholders' consultation, this increases the compliance costs to an EU-wide amount assessed at EUR 260,000 per year. It is assumed that the compliance costs for providing only SEED numbers would be half of it, i.e. EUR 130,000 per year. Out of 16 Economic Operators that replied to the question, 14, 13 and 4 considered a data cross check of SEED numbers, of ARC and of goods desription should be introduced respectively.

Though it is expected that common EU requirements on moving excise goods under duty suspension after import would reduce hassle costs of Economic Operators by reducing the complexity of provisions across different Member States, no specific data is available on the amount of such hassle cost savings. This option would also require an evolution of Member States customs and excise IT systems to implement the data cross-checks, which increases their enforcement costs. Based on an analysis of impacted IT tasks and messages (see ANNEX IV), the total cost of the IT systems over five years is assessed EU-wide at EUR 6.8, 9.6 and 12 million for the checking of SEED numbers, of ARC and of goods description respectively. Replies from the only two Member States that provided a quantified cost assessment in the stakeholders' consultation were both below these figures, which suggests that they are upper bonds. As highlighted by Member States replies to the stakeholders' consultation, data cross-checks would help reduce fraud, with the most advanced cross-check having a more positive impact on fraud reduction. This impact is difficult to quantify however as very few MS provided an opinion. According to Member States' replies to the stakeholdeholders' consultation, the "medium" cross-check (SEED numbers and ARC) would not reduce fraud compared to cross-checking only SEED numbers. Out of 18 Member States, 18, 17 and 13 considered a data cross check of SEED numbers, of ARC and of goods desription should be introduced respectively. This option is not expected to have any impact on the market or on SMEs, as most Economic Operators involved in import are large companies. Even though they may vary significantly depending on each member State's IT architecture, legacy systems, etc. the enforcement costs are still quite uniformly distributed among Member States as the requirements and IT implementation effort are similar. However, the benefits will be higher for Member States with high excise duty rates (i.e. which have a higher risk of excise fraud) or a high volume of movements of excise goods under duty suspension after import. 6.4.Duty Paid Business-to-Business 6.4.1.Do nothing (baseline) From the stakeholders' consultation (see [R5]), the number of duty paid B2B movements is expected to grow by about 6% over the next five years. The current issues (e.g. regulatory burden) are assumed to grow in the same proportion. If the B2B duty paid procedure is not automated, the B2B duty paid movements will continue to be covered by the existing paper-based system meaning that the movements of excise goods will continue to be accompanied by multiple copies of the SAAD (defined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 3649/92). This would mean that none of the existing problem will be resolved. The complicated and non-harmonized paper-based procedure will continue to be used. The usage of that procedure will not allow access to movements detailed and information about the economic operators taking part in duty paid movements. It will not be possible to have a real time monitoring or control of those movements by the Member State Administrations. Economic operators will struggle with high administrative burden and costs associated with the procedure (e.g. preparation of SAAD) and suffer from frequent delays in the release of guarantees as well as in the refund process. The current duty paid procedure presents limited capacity to perform risk analysis necessary to prevent fraudulent abuse of the paper-based procedure. Consequently, the problem will slightly worsen as Member States' administrative costs, Economic Operators' hassle costs and fraud are expected to increase over the next five years in the same proportion as the number of movements. No changes in the market structure are envisaged over the next five years. 6.4.2.Registration of Economic Operators This option increases enforcement costs for both Member States as it requires some IT investment and yearly operations (SEED extension), which is assessed at EUR 1.2 million and EUR 240,000 respectively. It also increases administrative costs for Member States and compliance costs for Economic Operators in order to perform the registration themselves (provide information and documents, process applications, etc.). The first registration of economic operators would cost Member States EUR 2.4 million, assuming that it will occur in the first year of the implementation of the system. Yearly administrative cost of renewing these registrations would amount to EUR 0.5 million. The compliance costs for Economic Operators are assessed at EUR 7.20 and 1.44 million for the first-time registrations and yearly renewals respectively. The investments costs and yearly operating expenses are assessed at EUR 1.2 million and EUR 0.24 million respectively. The enforcement costs for Member States is deduced from the stakeholders' consultation and from an IT cost assessment (seeAnnex IV). The compliance costs for Economic Operators is assumed to be half of the one for duty suspension (see evaluation report [R1]) as the duty paid B2B registration procedures are expected to be much simpler; this leads to an effort of 6 and 1 man*days to get a first-time registration and a yearly renewal respectively. It should have a positive impact on the fight against fraud, as registrations and authorisations always do (however difficult to quantify). The registration and electronic storage by Member States of certain information regarding economic operators dealing with duty paid B2B movements will be indispensable for the proper function of excise duty system and the fight against fraud. At the moment there is a lack of data concerning duty paid movements and traders dealing with those operations. The movements are covered by paper documents exchanged between traders; often without any intervention of Member State administration. The registration will ensure storage of up to date accurate data about these economic operators. In case of any irregularities it will allow a rapid exchange of those data between Member States and automated access to information. Making use of the information contained in registers, through a risk analysis, will result in better detection of suspicious movements and hence in reduction of fraud. This option does not provide direct benefits to the Economic Operators. So, it is expected to have a slightly negative impact on the market and in particular on SMEs as the latter are relatively more sensitive to compliance costs.

6.4.3.Automation of Duty Paid B2B processes by extending EMCS This option requires significantly higher IT investment from Member States, which leads to higher enforcement costs too; initial investment and yearly operating expenses are assessed EU-wide at EUR 7.5 and 1.5 million respectively. The enforcement costs for Member States are deducted from the stakeholders' consultation. Economic Operators will update their own IT systems if they deem worth it; otherwise they will fill in on-line forms provided by Member States. Based on the replies to the stakeholders' consultation, the regulatory costs for Economic Operators are assessed EU-wide at EUR 14.50 and 2.90 million for initial one-off costs and for yearly operations respectively. This option also reduces administrative burden for both Member States and Economic Operators (productivity gains, faster processing, guarantee release and refund). Extrapolated from the replies to the stakeholders' consultation, the yearly cost savings are assessed EU-wide at EUR 5.8 and 12.20 million for Member States and Economic Operators respectively. This option will have a definitely positive impact on the fight against fraud as the monitoring of movements would be much more efficient. This is however difficult to quantify. Based on the stakeholders' consultation, the benefits/costs ratio is expected to be more than twice higher for SMEs than for large companies, likely because their structure is more adaptable to changes in procedures or in IT systems. Even though they may vary significantly depending on each member State's IT architecture, legacy systems, etc. the enforcement costs are still quite uniformly distributed among Member States as the requirements and IT implementation effort are similar. However, the benefits will be higher for Member States with high excise duty rates (i.e. which have a higher risk of excise fraud) or a high volume of duty paid business-to-business movements. Out of 19 Member States and 24 Economic Operators that provided an opinion in the targeted stakeholders' consultation, 18 and 21 respectively considered the automation of duty paid B2B procedures should be introduced. From the Open Public Consultation, 87% of respondent Economic Operators and Trade Associations considered this option useful or very useful. 6.5.Exceptional Situations 6.5.1.Do nothing (baseline) Doing nothing will cost economic operators EUR 13.49 million and Administrations EUR 8.13 million additional costs over the next 5 years if nothing is changed No obligation on economic operators to report destructions, losses, and/or thefts during movements or to add storage capacity of a tax warehouse would generate no new costs or benefits either for Economic Operators or for Member States, and would leave related fraud unaffected. Lack of standardization of procedures and equipment used in order to estimate/calculate shortages/excesses in turn, apart from causing uncertainty for Economic Operators, will cost Member States ca. EUR 7.64 million over the course of the next five years. Nonexistence of standard allowable losses threshold, again causing uncertainty to Economic Operators, also costs Member States an estimated EUR 0.29 million annually. Lack of a standard right to be heard in turn, considered to be at least to some extent burdensome by 80% of Economic Operators, generates cost of approximately EUR 13.5 million annually. No changes in the level of fraud or in the market structure are envisaged over the next five years. 6.5.2.Specify a common approach supported by legislation and guidelines This option is not expected to have any significant impact on the market or on SMEs. Quantity assessment for shortages and excesses: the legal requirement to follow the EU metrology acquis, particularly the use of certified measuring equipment, and their use would be encouraged through guidance and workshops. Metrology directives ensure quantities are measured in a common way in all Member States and are already in force; consequently there is no need for any legislation amendment but only to make national authorities involved in excise procedures more aware of these directives. The standardization of procedures and equipment used to estimate/calculate shortages/excesses is supported by both Member States (69%) and Economic Operators (76%)–is expected to generate benefits of approximately EUR 17.2 million in lower administrative costs for Member States and approximately EUR 93 million for Economic Operators in forgone administrative, compliance and hassle costs. Additionally, the introduction of this policy option has a potential to moderately reduce the risk of fraud for Member States. The benefit of this option would outweigh its costs within one year of its implementation. Introduction of compulsory reports in case of destructions, losses, and/or thefts during movements would generate a cost of approximately EUR 35 million for EOs over 5 years. At the same time, MSAs believed it had a potential to moderately limit the risk of fraud. Unsurprisingly, then, this policy option was more popular among the latter (66.6%) than the former (45%). It is difficult to evaluate benefits to the MS in terms of scale of the fraud reduction so it is difficult to assess whether (and when) the costs borne by the EOs would be offset by fraud reducti