No C 178/34 Official Journal of the European Communities 15.7.82 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation on inward processing relief arrange­
ments 
The text referred to the Committee has not yet been published in the Official Journal 
of the European Communities. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 25 January 1982 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Econo­
mic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty establishing 
the European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
197th plenary session held in Brussels on 28 and 29 April 1982. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 198 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council 
of the European Communities on 25 January 1982 
for an opinion on the proposal for a Council Regu­
lation on inward processing relief arrangements, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau 
on 26 January 1982, instructing the Section for 
Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services to draw up 
an opinion and a report on the matter, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the above 
Section on 31 March 1982, 
Having regard to the oral report made by the rap­
porteur, Mr Broicher, 
Having regard to its discussions during the 197th 
plenary session, held on 28 and 29 April 1982, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by 68 votes to 2, with 4 abstentions: 
The Committee welcomes the draft Regulation. It 
would, however, make the following observations: 1. General comments 
1.1. The Commission is endeavouring to codify, by 
means of the proposed Regulation, a particularly 
complex legal field the provisions of which have 
been frequently amended and supplemented since 
the adoption of Directive No 69/73/EEC of 4 July 
1969. With this draft Regulation, the Commission 
intends to make an important contribution towards 
the further harmonization of Community law and 
the achievement of a higher degree of transparency 
in this field. The Committee endorses these endea­
vours. 
1.2. The Committee wonders whether this objec­
tive could not be achieved yet more effectively by 
issuing the draft Regulation on outward processing 
relief arrangements simultaneously with the draft 
Regulation on inward processing relief arrange­
ments. These are, of course, different areas of law, 
but there are links between the provisions in the two 
fields both from the point of view of content and 
concepts. A slight delay in the presentation of the 
draft Regulation for this purpose could easily be 
accepted as the distortions in competition cited by 
the Commission as a consequence of the earlier 
Directives remain limited, judging by the experi­
ences of more than a decade. 
2. Specific comments 
Article 1 (3) 
2.1. Whilst the scope of the Directive was limited 
to the purely customs aspects of the procedure, 
merely laying down that goods imported for pro-
15.7.82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 178/35 
cessing and re-export were not subject to import 
duties, the draft Regulation represents the first mea­
sure designed to bring commercial-policy considera­
tions into the customs procedure. To this end, the 
arrangements are also to be applied to the process­
ing of imported goods which, whilst not being sub­
ject to import duties, are covered by commercial-
policy measures. In the Committee's view there is 
no reason why these similar cases should not be 
dealt with in a similar way as there is no point in 
having restrictions on imports if the goods in ques­
tion are exported after processing and are therefore 
not brought into free circulation in the Community. 
Article 1 (5) 
2.2. The Committee fears that the imprecise word­
ing of Article 1 (5) will enable the Committee for 
Customs Procedures, acting in accordance with 
Article 18, to disregard, without justification, the 
economic conditions for granting an authorization 
set out in Article 5. For this reason the Committee is 
able to support these provisions only on condition 
that the objective is defined more clearly and if 
steps are taken to prevent the circumvention of the 
standards laid down in the draft Regulation itself. 
Commercial-policy objectives and measures cannot 
be determined without specific legal bases. The 
necessary legal powers are clearly not included in 
the terms of reference of a Committee which, 
according to Article 18, is only entitled to set out 
implementing provisions. 
Article 3 (1), second sentence 
2.3. The Committee proposes that the wording of 
the original Directive be retained and the obligation 
thus be defined as follows: 
'If so requested by the competent authorities, 
the operator shall, in a manner determined by 
them, supply the information in his possession 
to substantiate the existence of the conditions 
referred to in Article 5'. 
Article 3 (2), first sentence 
2.4. The provision defining the competent auth­
ority should be expanded to state that authorization 
may be granted not only by the customs office res­
ponsible for the place where the processing opera­
tions are carried out, but also by the customs office 
responsible for the place in which the headquarters 
of the operator is situated. Article 3 (2), second sentence 
2.5. The Committee would also propose that the 
provisions referred to in this sentence be set out in 
the Regulation itself as it should not be difficult to 
put forward an appropriate solution at the present 
time. 
Article "> {2), first sentence 
2.6. To make it clear that the situations indicated 
in Article 5 (2) do not constitute an exhaustive list of 
the cases in which the principle propounded in 
Article 5 (1) shall apply, the Committee recom­
mends that the words 'inter alia' be inserted after 
'The economic conditions shall be deemed to be ful­
filled'. 
Article 6 
2.7. Contrary to the provisions of the Directive, 
Article 6 of the draft Regulation lays down that 
securities must be provided and it further provides, 
merely in order to ensure the uniform application of 
the measures, for exemptions from the need to pro­
vide a security to be decided upon by the Com­
mittee under the procedure set out in Article 18. 
Steps must be taken to ensure that these exemptions 
are at least applied generously and with the neces­
sary degree of urgency. Moreover, until such time as 
the exemptions, which are to be defined as per 
Article 18 have been granted, temporary arrange­
ments should be provided for operators who are at 
present benefiting from exemption. 
2.8. The Committee recommends that the rules set 
out in Article 3 (1) (b) of Directive 69/73/EEC be 
incorporated into the Regulation instead of being 
kept for an implementing Regulation. 
Article 7 (1), second sentence 
2.9. The obligation on the operator to inform the 
competent authority of all the said factors which 
occur in the course of the processing operations is 
not practicable in the current wording. The Com­
mittee therefore proposes that the obligation should 
at least be limited to factors which are known to the 
operator. 
Article 7 (2), second sentence 
2.10. If the interests of the customs authorities are 
not jeopardized, the fact that the work is carried out 
'on behalf of the operator, would not appear to be 
of significance. The Committee also proposes that 
the word 'may', be replaced by 'shall' as a refusal to 
grant authorization is not justified if customs super­
vision or control is not jeopardized. 
No C 178/36 Official Journal of the European Communities 15. 7. 82 
the date on which the competent customs office 
receives the operator's declaration that he wishes to 
place the goods under inward processing relief 
arrangements. 
Article 13 (2) 
2.14. This point is not comprehensible as it stands. 
It is right that import duties should not be levied if 
the goods are totally destroyed and only levied in 
respect of the value of what remains if they are 
partly destroyed; this fact is not clearly expressed. 
Article 14 (2) 
2.15. So as to avoid unneccesary delay, the Com­
mittee recommends that the word 'may' be replaced 
by 'shall' in the first line of the second paragraph of 
Article 14 (2). 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Tomas ROSEINGRAVE 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Defeated amendments 
The following amendment, based on the Section opinion and tabled in accordance with the 
Rules of Procedure, was defeated during the discussion: 
Page 4 
Delete point 2.6. 
Reasons 
Points 2 to 5 of Article 5 of the proposed Regulation appropriately set out an exhaustive list of 
the cases in which the required economic conditions are considered to be fulfilled. Point 2.6 
opens up a major loophole in the entire system. 
The exhaustive nature of this list is clarified in Article 14 which stipulates, for the purpose of 
ensuring that Article 5 is applied correctly and uniformly, that the Member States shall notify the 
Commission of the factors which led to the authorization of inward processing relief arrange­
ments. A full procedure, involving the Committee for Customs Procedures with Economic 
Impact, is then triggered off. 
Point 2.6 of the Section's opinion introduces an element of legal uncertainty into this rationally 
structured edifice. Further, in leaving the competent authorities free to expand the concept of Article 8 (1) 
2.11. The words 'for export' should be deleted as 
they are incomprehensible without a definition. 
Article 8 (2) 
2.12. The Committee sees no need to set uniform 
time limits for certain categories of processing oper­
ations and therefore recommends that this para­
graph be deleted. 
Article 8 (4) 
2.13. There is a need to define the juncture at 
which goods are placed under inward processing 
relief arrangements. It should be pointed out that 
the time limits which have been set take effect from 
Done at Brussels, 28 April 1982. 
15.7.82 Official Journal of the European Communities NoC 178/37 
economic conditions considered (automatically) to be fulfilled, the proposed Regulation in effect 
assumes the character of a Directive whereas one purpose of the proposal under discussion is to 
enshrine the principles embodied in Directive 69/73/EEC on inward processing in a regulation. 
Cases may arise where the rule stated in Article 5 (1) is applicable but only subject to the Com­
mission's formal authorization and for a limited period to be determined under Article 14. 
For the above reasons, point 2.6 should be deleted. 
Voting 
For: 9, against: 398, abstentions: 18.