NoC 169/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 7. 85 
Article 9 
The Committee points out that the accident-prevention 
regulations in many Member States could be invoked to 
restrict the use of tractors with collapsible two-pillar 
roll-over protection structures. Article 9 should take account 
of this. 'The roll-over protection structure must comply with 
the requirements of either the present proposal, the pro­
posed Community Directive No 6276/83, Directive 
77/536/EEC, or Directive 79/622/EEC 
Article 10 
The Committee feels that reference to Directives 
77/536/EEC and 79/622/EEC should state that the 
protection structure can be designed either according to the 
requirements of the proposed Directive or according to the 
much more stringent requirements for standard tractors. The 
Committee therefore recommends the following wording: The Committee alerts the Commission to certain 
imperfections in the various language versions, and asks that 
the necessary alterations be made. 
Technical comments on the Annexes to the proposal have 
also been compiled. These have been sent by their authors to 
the appropriate Commission departments. 
Done at Brussels, 24 April 1985. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation on the entry in the accounts and terms of payment 
of the amounts of the import duties or export duties resulting from a customs debt (*) 
(85/C 169/03) 
On 22 January 1985 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the abovementioned 
proposal. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 10 April 1985 in the light of the report by Mr 
Broicher. 
At its 226th plenary session (meeting of 24 April 1985) the Committee adopted the following opinion 
by a unanimous vote: 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Commission justifies its proposal with regard to 
the fixing of duties and the procedures for their payment on 
the grounds that customs legislation must be 
comprehensively harmonized. Apart from requiring the 
alignment of individual areas of the law, this objective also 
demands that related legislation is consolidated and does not 
become fragmented. 
1.2. The proposed provisions are directly linked to the 
provisions with regard to customs debts and the persons 
OJNoC41, 13, 2, 1985, p. 5. liable for payment on which the Committee has already 
commented. This legislation should therefore be embodied in 
one Regulation instead of three or, at the very least, these 
three Regulations should be adopted together and published 
in the same Official Journal. This alone will make the law 
clear and certain. 
1.3. For the same reasohs, the customs code which the 
Committee has repeatedly called for should be drawn up as 
soon as possible. This would be a major step towards the 
abolition of those remaining intra-Community barriers. 
8. 7. 85 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 169/7 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 3 
2.1.1. Article 3 specifies when the duties are to be entered 
in the accounts by the customs authority. The 
straightforward cases are dealt with in paragraphs 1 and 3, 
while paragraph 2 refers to an exceptional case, i.e. the 
post-clearance recovery of duties. 
2.1.2. The Committee recommends that the 
straightforward cases be listed together, i.e. that paragraphs 
2 and 3 be switched. This would be more logical. entry in the accounts must also be notified, since this date is 
decisive for calculating the payment deadlines. The entry in 
the accounts is an internal administrative act of which the 
persons liable for payment have no knowledge even if they 
are notified of the amount due immediately after the entry is 
made. There may be a considerable time lapse between these 
two events, e.g. when several public holidays fall, with the 
result that the deadline for the payment of the duty is 
shortened. At all events, if the persons liable for payment are 
not notified of the date of entry in the accounts they will find 
it more difficult to check the deadline calculation and 
whether they were notified of the amount due immediately 
after the entry in the accounts. 
2.1.3. This switch would also make it clear that in the 
event of a post-clearance recovery of duties the entry in the 
accounts applies to both 'the conditions referred to in 
paragraph V and those referred to in paragraph 3. Hence 
'and paragraph 3' should be added after 'paragraph V in the 
second line of paragraph 2. 
2.2. Article 4 
The Committee proposes the deletion of 'for entry in the 
accounts' and of the Article 3 paragraph numbers at the start 
of Article 4. There are no other time limits for any other 
purposes in Article 3. 
2.3. Article S 
The Committee thinks it is not enough to notify the person 
liable for payment of only the amount due. The date of the 2.4. Article 12 (1) (b) 
The Committee advocates the amendment of this provision. 
It does not think that there are any grounds for refusing a 
deferment of payment in the case of a post-clearance recovery 
of duty if the entry in the accounts has been delayed for 
administrative reasons (as per Article 5 (2) of Regulation 
(EEC) No 1697/79. 
2.5. Article 16 
The Committee urges the Commission to reconsider the 
wording of Article 16. At the moment there are reasons for 
assuming that, although a security has been provided, the 
customs authority is still obliged to enforce its claim against 
anybody failing to meet a payment deadline, and is thus 
entitled to use this procedure and call in the security. This 
would, however, conflict with the purpose of providing a 
security and the rule stating that a duty may not be collected 
twice. 
Done at Brussels, 24 April 1985. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down the conditions for access to the 
arrangements under the Revised Convention for the Navigation of the Rhine Relating to Vessels 
Belonging to the Rhine Navigation (J) 
(85/C 169/04) 
On 11 February 1985 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 75 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the abovementioned 
proposal. 
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 17 April 1985 in the light of the report by 
Mr Fortuyn. 
At its 226th plenary session (meeting of 24 April 1985) the Economic and Social Committee adopted 
the following opinion unanimously: 
(') OJ No C 48, 20. 2. 1985, p. 4.