OSÉ» COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
C0MC91) 25 final 
Brussels, 27 February 1991 
wm Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) 
W1:.} ï 
-i amending Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 setting up 
a Community system of reliefs from customs duty 
(presented by the Commission) 
•»fr 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
I. The first aim of this proposal Is to amend the provisions of 
Title VI (Articles 27 and 28) of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 by 
extending the administrative simplification contained in it to 
cover all imports of goods of negligible value. 
This would mean that the simplification measure would be of real 
use since national administrations would be authorized not to 
recover all the minimal amounts of duty the cost of collecting 
which would be higher than the amounts collected, owing to the 
opcioiing costs incurred. 
Furthermore, the customs provisions would be aligned as a result on 
the tax provisions which enable exemption from value-added tax to 
be granted on imports of negligible value up to a maximum value of 
ECU 22 (see amended Directive 83/181/EEC of 28 March 19831). This 
alignment would help make the simplification measure even more 
useful. 
II. The second aim of this proposal concerns the review of the 
administrative procedure for granting reiIef for imports of certain 
scientific instruments or apparatus Into the European Community (known 
as "UNESCO" rei iefs). 
1. This system of reliefs has been applied in the Community on 
the basis of Community provisions since 1975 and it now seems 
opportune to conduct an evaluation of its operation and 
usefulness. 
1 OJ L 105, 23.4.1983, p. 38. 
- 2 -
2. Components of this rei ief 
The scope of this relief is determined by a number of criteria. 
2.1. The beneficiary must be an educational or research 
establishment; It may belong to the public sector or 
to the private sector, but in the latter case it must 
be approved by the Member States' authorities. 
2.2. The instrument or apparatus must be imported solely 
for non-commercial purposes. 
2.3. The instrument or apparatus must be used solely by the 
establishment benefiting from the relief. 
2.4. The imported instrument or apparatus must be considered as 
scientific in accordance with objective technical 
character ist ics. 
2.5. There must be no scientific instruments or apparatus 
of equivalent value currently manufactured in the 
Commun i t y. 
3. Petermipation of non-equivalence 
Since the criterion referred to in 2.5. above has to be asssessed in 
the light of all Community production, the Member State in which 
relief Is requested cannot usually provide the answer on its own. 
That is why in practice a two-stage procedure has been introduced: 
- 3 -
3.1. Stage one (without the Commission): 
The Member State in which the relief is requested sends a 
request for information to the competent authorities in the 
other Member States (all or some) In accordance with a 
procedure worked out in agreement with all the Member States 
in the Committee on Duty-Free Arrangements chaired by a 
Commission representative. The authorities conduct a survey 
of their countries' Industry; this stage lasts at least four 
months, and may be extended at the request of a Member State. 
3.2. Stage two (with the Commission): 
If following completion of procedure 3.1. no decision can be 
taken on the request for relief, the Member State concerned 
has to transmit the dossier to the Commission (Commission 
Regulation (EEC) No 2290/83). The Commission will immediately 
distribute copies of the dossier to the other Member States 
and subsequently a translation (In English, French and German 
only) of the main pages of the documents. The Member States 
have three months in which to adopt a position. If a Member 
State puts forward a duly reasoned objection during this 
period, that objection Is communicated by the Commission to 
the other 11 Member States and translated in the same way as 
the initial dossier. The Commission then consults the Member 
States In an ad hoc group convened under its chairmanship in 
Brussels. In many cases one meeting does not suffice and the 
dossier is then re-examined at a subsequent meeting of the 
same group, and even at a third meeting. The Commission then 
adopts a decision, which must in any event be taken within 
nine months of the Commission's receipt of the request. The 
decision is communicated to the requesting Member state and 
published In abridged form In the Official Journal of the 
European Communities. 
- 4 -
4. Evaluation of the procedure 
The complexity of this procedure does not need Illustration: the 
length of the two stages described In points 3.1. and 3.2. is In 
Itself sufficient to give an idea of the problem. On top of up to 13 
months' actual examination laid down by the Community provisions, 
which are furthermore difficult to keep to, there are the periods 
arising from the national administrative procedures, which means that 
the average period which elapses between the Introduction of the 
request by the importer and the final reply from customs is 
one-and-a-half to two years. 
This procedure concerns only the non-equivalence criterion. 
The establishment of this criterion may reveal divergent interests 
among Member States, and it is therefore essential to have a central 
arbitration authority (stage two), and if there is arbitration, this 
must be based on detailed appraisal of the dossiers. As in practice 
the dossiers often do not contain all the information required for 
their evaluation, requests for additional information must be sent to 
the Member States' authorities. A technical expert from the Ispra 
Research Centre takes part in every meeting of the ad hoc group (ten a 
year). 
It is difficult to discuss the cases because not only is it necessary 
to compare and evaluate the capabilities of two or more instruments or 
items of apparatus but this evaluation has to be carried out in the 
light of the specific features of the planned research project, and 
this frequently leads to litigation, which continues even after the 
Commission has taken its decision, as seen from the remarkable number 
of cases brought before the Court of Justice. 
- 5 
The complexity of this procedure makes it very expensive, particularly 
in terms of human resources: 
(a) in the Member States; 
(b) at Commission level, as regards the departments directly 
concerned (DG XXI) and those Indirectly Involved (Ispra 
Research Centre, translators, interpreters at the ten meetings 
a year); 
(c) In the Court of jusiice and in the Commission's Legal Service 
as a result of the disputes which the Court is quite 
frequently called upon to settle. 
5. The role of the criterion of non-eouI valence In the system 
5.1. Quantitative aspect? 
The number of requests for relief is between 600 and 700 a 
year In the European Community. It has tended to decline over 
the last few years. Experience shows that, of all the 
requests, at least 80% are accepted and among the rejections a 
large proportion are due not to the equivalence of Community 
products but the non-sclent ifIc nature of the apparatus 
imported. 
In 1989, of a total of 98 requests rejected at national level, 
of a total of 530 dossiers handled direct by the Member 
States,* only 43, i.e. 9%, were rejected because of the 
existence of Community equivalents. 
* Figure Includes only those dossiers in respect of which the 
Information given was correctly presented. 
- 6 -
This is the usual percentage and the proportions are the same 
for requests handled by the Commission. It may be concluded 
that usually a maximum of 10% of the requests for relief for 
imports of scientific instruments or apparatus Into the 
Community are rejected on the grounds that equivalent products 
are available within the Community. 
5.2. Qua Iitatlve aspects 
The question is whether the equivalence criterion is really 
justified in economic terms. Since the system was designed to 
encourage scientific research in the Community, tariff 
protection paradoxically comes into play only when Community 
production of such instruments or apparatus is fully 
competitive (equivalent) and so does not need to be protected. 
When a better instrument is placed on the market by a firm 
outside the Community, protection of Community production 
immediately ceases to apply. It must therefore be admitted 
that in economic terms the usefulness of the criterion of the 
equivalence of Community products is a very relative concept. 
6. Conclusions 
Given its limited usefulness and the relatively small number of 
cases in which it plays a decisive role, the Commission has come to 
the conclusion that the equivalence criterion is not worth 
retaining in the system of "UNESCO" reliefs. 
The abolition of this criterion is therefore proposed, but it is 
understood that the granting of relief remains subject to the 
criteria listed under 2.1., 2.2., 2.3. and 2.4. above. 
- 7 -
When the equivalence criterion is abolished, the two-tier procedure 
referred to under 3.1. and 3.2. above will no longer apply. Rather 
than take decisions on individual cases of imports of scientific 
instruments or apparatus, the Commission will confine itself to 
establishing general guide IInes relating to the criteria still 
applicable, similar to the steps it usually takes to ensure that 
customs legislation is uniformly applied. The application of the 
criteria in individual cases of requests for reliefs will then 
become the sole responsibility of the relevant national authorities 
in the light of these general guidelines. 
The abolition of the equivalence criterion will also make the work 
of the national administrations easier; in view of the uncertainty 
regarding the assessment of this criterion, at present they do not 
always manage to take unambiguous decisions consistent with those 
adopted by their counterparts in the other Member States. 
Other cases In which iilfi equivalence CriterlQD LS at present 
applicable under Community rules 
The third aim of the proposed regulation Is to extend the 
amendments proposed for scientific instruments and apparatus to 
other educational, scientific or cultural goods. 
The provisions at present applicable provide for the application of 
an equivalence criterion and rules of procedure similar to those 
set out above for Instruments and apparatus intended for medical 
research, establishing medical diagnoses or carrying out medical 
treatment and for articles for the use of handicapped persons other 
than blind people» 
- 8 
It appears even more pointless to maintain these provisions here 
than In the case of scientific instruments and apparatus, for the 
fol lowing reasons: 
1. The relief for medical equipment is very limited in scope 
since it applies only to goods imported as a gift. There is a 
danger that the complexity of applying the equivalence 
criterion will deprive this limited measure of the little 
substance it has. 
2. With regard to imports of goods for the use of handicapped" 
persons, the Member States have of their own accord stopped 
Implementing the two-tier procedure provided for in Community 
texts and over the last ten years of operation of these relief 
arrangements have adopted a liberal attitude which meant that 
the équivalence criterion was disregarded. 
In any event, only one case was put to the Commission, and 
this happened in 1979, immediately after the adoption of the 
first Community measures establishing a relief in this sphere. 
The information supplied by the Member States during an 
exchange of views arranged by the Commission revealed that the 
national administrations had not implemented any measure 
designed to assess the equivalence of the goods in question, 
and the recognition of the right to the relief depended on the 
status of the recipient (handicapped person or specialized 
institution) and the nature of the equipment imported (article 
specially designed for a handicapped person). 
3. The equivalence criterion is still more difficult to apply 
than in the case of scientific instruments or apparatus owing 
to the impossibility of keeping solely to objective technical 
data, which are in themselves open to differing 
interpretations, as already pointed out. 
- 9 .-
Apart from these quite specific reasons, It would of course be very 
strange for the abolition of the equivalence criterion and the 
resulting rules of procedure not to be extended to medical 
equipment and articles for the use of handicapped persons, since 
these goods have always been linked, in legislative terms, with 
scientific instruments and apparatus in order to form a homogeneous 
whole within the reliefs system. 
In order to maintain the similarity between the wording of the 
Articles, this being a means of stressing the link, the wording of 
the amendments contained in this Regulet Ic • \z identical. 
IV. The text resulting from the proposed amendments, as set out in 
Annexes I to IV to the proposed regulation, differs from the present 
text as fol lows: 
1. For goods of negligible value: 
extension of the relief to all direct imports from a 
non-Community country, up to a value of ECU 22. 
2. For scientific instruments and apparatus, medical apparatus 
and articles intended for handicapped persons: 
abolition of the non-equivalence condition; 
introduction of exclusions for certain equipment; 
provision for drawing up a list of equipment which may 
be imported duty free as part of the implementing 
provisions. 
The last two components are intended to prevent any danger of 
misuse which might result from the abolition of the 
non-equivalence condition. 
V. Parliament does not have to be consulted on this proposal for a 
regulation since it is based on Article 28 of the EEC Treaty. 
M 
Proposal for 
Council Regulation (EEC) No.../.. 
of ... 
amending Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 setting up 
a Community system of reliefs from customs duty 
The Council of the European Communities, 
Having regarc u u.c Treaty establishing tht European Economic Community, 
and in particular Article 28 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, 
Whereas the administrative simplification provided for in Article 27 of 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community 
system of reliefs from customs duty must, if it is to be effective, be 
applied to all imports of goods of negligible value; 
Whereas the whole of Title VI of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 must be amended 
accordingly; 
Whereas the provisions of Articles 52 to 56, 63a and 63b, and 72 to 74 of 
Regulation (EEC) 918/83 must be revised in the light of experience in order 
to remove conditions which are expensive and complicated to apply and thus 
to facilitate imports of the goods in question; 
M. 
Whereas the condition of non-equivalence of Community products should 
therefore be abolished, since, where It Is still really applied, it does 
not succeed In providing effective protection as It comes too late In the 
process of development of these products, and since its implementation is 
fraught with disputes amongst experts which can sensibly be settled only by 
more or less systematically giving way to the importer's interests and by 
recognizing his right to a relief owing to the special circumstances 
surrounding his Import, 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
Article 1 
The provisions of Articles 27, 52 to 56, 63a and 63b, and 72 to 74 of 
Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 are hereby replaced by the corresponding new 
provisions set out in Annexes I to IV respectively to this Regulation. 
Article 2 
The references made in Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 to the provisions of 
Articles 27, 52 to 56, 63a and 63b and 72 to 74 of Regulation (EEC) 918/83 
must be amended accordingly. 
Article 3 
This Regulation shall enter Into force on the third day following its 
publication In the Official Journal of the European Communities. 
It shall apply from 1 January 1992. 
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in 
at I Member States. 
Done at Brussels, ... For the Council 
The President 
M 
ANNEX 
A 
TITLE VI 
GOODS OF NEGLIGIBLE VALUE 
Article 27 
Subject to Article 28, any goods of negligible value dispatched direct from 
a third country to a natural or legal person in the Community shall be 
admitted free of import duties. 
'Goods of negligible value' means goods the intrinsic value of which does 
not exceed a total of ECU 22. 
Article 23 
The relief shall not apply to the following: 
(a) alcoholic products; 
(b) perfumes and toilet waters; 
(c) tobacco or tobacco products. 
ANNEX M 
fi 
Articles 52 to 56 
Article 52 
1. Subject to Articles 53 to 58, scientific instruments and apparatus which 
are not Included In Article 51 shall be admitted free of import duties when 
they are imported exclusively for non-commercial purposes. 
2. The relief referred to in paragraph 1 shall be limited to scientific 
instruments and apparatus which are intended for: 
- either public establishments principally engaged in education or 
scientific research and those departments of public establishments 
which are principally engaged in education or scientific research, 
- or private establishments principally engaged in education or 
scientific research and approved by the competent authorities of 
the Member States to receive such articles duty free. 
Article 53 
The relief shall also apply to: 
(a) spare parts, components or accessories specifically suitable for 
scientific instruments or apparatus, provided that such spare parts, 
components or accessories are imported at the same time as such instruments 
or apparatus or, where they are imported subsequently, that they can be 
identified as being intended for instruments or apparatus: 
fi 
which have previously been admitted duty free, provided that such 
instruments or apparatus are still of a scientific nature at the time 
when relief is requested for the specific spare parts, components or 
accessories, or 
which would be entitled to relief at the time when such relief is 
requested for the specific spare parts, components or accessories; 
(b) tools to be used for the maintenance, checking, calibration or repair 
of scientific instruments or apparatus, provided that these tools are 
imported at the same time as such instruments ana apparatus or, where they 
are imported subsequently, that they can be identified as being intended 
for instruments or apparatus: 
which have previously been admitted duty free, provided that such 
instruments or apparatus are still of a scientific nature at the time 
when relief is requested for the tools, or 
which would be entitled to relief at the time when such relief is 
requested for the tools. 
A 
Article 54 
For the purposes of Articles 52 and 53: 
'scientific instrument or apparatus' means any instrument or apparatus 
which, by reason of its objective technical characteristics and the 
results which it makes it possible to obtain, Is mainly or exclusively 
suited to scientific activities, 
'imported for non-commercial purposes' shall be considered to apply to 
scientific instruments or apparatus intended to be used for 
non-profit-making scientific research or educational purposes. 
Article 55 
No relief shall in any event be granted for items of equipment in common 
use and household and domestic equipment, whether or not used directly in 
educational activities or scientific research. 
Article 5g 
A list of instruments and appliances which may be imported duty free shall 
be drawn up if necessary, in accordance with the procedure laid down in 
Article 143 (2) and (3). 
ANNEX III 
/& 
TITLE XIVa 
INSTRUMENTS AND APPARATUS INTENDED FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH, ESTABLISHING 
MEDICAL DIAGNOSES OR CARRYING OUT MEDICAL TREATMENT 
Article 63a 
1. Instruments and apparatus intended for medical research, establishing 
medical diagnoses or carrying out medical treatment which are donated 
either by a charitable or philanthropic organization or by a private 
individual to health authorities, hospital departments or medical 
research institutions approved by the competent authorities of the 
Member States to receive such articles duty free, or which are 
purchased by such health authorities, hospitals or medical research 
institutions entirely with funds supplied by a charitable or 
philanthropic organization or with voluntary contributions, shall be 
admitted free of import duties, always provided that it is established 
that: 
(a) the donation of the instruments or apparatus in question does 
not conceal any commercial Intent on the part of the donor; 
and 
(b) the donor is in no way connected with the manufacturer of the 
instruments or apparatus for which relief is requested. 
2. The relief shall also apply, subject to the same conditions, to: 
(a) spare parts, components or accessories specifically suitable 
for the above instruments or apparatus, provided that these 
spare parts, components or accessories are imported at the 
same time as such instruments and apparatus or, where they are 
imported subsequently, that they can be identified as being 
Intended for instruments or apparatus previously admitted duty 
free-, 
h 
(b) tools to be used for the maintenance, checking, calibration or 
repair of instruments or apparatus, provided that these tools 
are imported at the same time as such instruments and 
apparatus or, where they are imported subsequently, that they 
can be identified as being intended for instruments or 
apparatus previously admitted duty free. 
Article 63P 
For the purposes of Article 63a, and in particular with regard to the 
instruments or apparatus and the recipient bodies referred to therein, 
Articles 55, 56, 57 and 58 shall apply mutatis mutandis. 
ANNEX IY 
M/ 
Articles 72 to 74 
2. Articles for the use of other handicapped persons. 
Article 72 
1. Articles specially designed for the education, employment or social 
advancement of physically or mentally handicapped persons other 
than blind persons shall be admitted free of Import duties where 
they are imported: 
either by handicapped persons themselves for their own use; 
or by institutions or organizations that are principally 
engaged in the education of or the provision of assistance to 
handicapped persons and are authorized by the competent 
authorities of the Member States to receive such articles duty 
free. 
2. The relief referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply to spare parts, 
components or accessories specifically for the articles in 
question, and to the tools to be used for the maintenance, 
checking, calibration or repair of the said articles provided that 
such spare parts, components, accessories or tools are imported at 
the same time as the said articles, or, where they are imported 
subsequently, that they can be Identified as being intended for 
articles which previously admitted duty free, or which would be 
entitled to relief at the time when such relief is requested for 
the specific spare parts, components or accessories and tools in 
question. 
# 
' Article 73 
No relief shall be granted for the following: 
- articles intended for the treatment or rehabilitation of 
handicapped persons; 
- diagnostic and testing equipment used by medical institutions; 
items of equipment in common use and household and domestic 
equipment ; 
in general terms, all articles which have simply been modified and 
have not had their technical characteristics adapted to make them 
suitable for use solely by handicapped persons. 
Article 74 
A list of articles which may be admitted duty free shall be drawn up, if 
necessary, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 143 (2) 
and (3). 
FICHE FINANCIERE 
1. Ligne budgétaire concernée : Chap. 12 art. 120 
2. Intitulé de I 'act ion : Proposition de modification du règlement 
(CEE) n' 918/83 du Conseil du 28/03/1983 relatif à 
l'établissement du régime communautaire des franchises 
douanières. 
3. Base Juridique : Art. 28 du Traité-CEE. 
4. OblectIf de I'action : Suppression d'une des conditions prévues 
pour l'octroi de I? franchise à I'Importâtior C'T instruments CJ 
appareils scientifiques, des appareillages médicaux et des objets 
destinés aux personnes handicapées. 
5. Coût de l'action : 
La suppression de la condition de non-équivalence de productions 
communautaires va entraîner la non perception de ressources 
propres (droit de douane) dans un nombre de cas en fait très 
limité : 
- une cinquantaine dans l'ensemble de la Communauté pour les 
Instruments et appareils scientifiques, 
- un nombre plus réduit pour les appareillages médicaux, 
- probablement aucun pour les objets destinés aux personnes 
handicapées dans la mesure où la condition de non-équivalence 
n'est plus réellement appliquée par les Etats membres. 
Il n'est pas possible de chiffrer très précisément l'Incidence 
financière qui doit rester minime. 
AS 
Fiche d'Impact de certains actes législatifs sur les PME et l'emploi 
1. OBLIGATIONS ADMINISTRATIVES DECOULANT DE L'APPLICATION DE 
LA LEGISLATION POUR LES ENTREPRISES 
NEANT 
2. AVANTAGES POUR L'ENTREPRISE 
OUI/NON 
LESQUELLES 
3. INCONVENIENTS POUR L'ENTREPRISE 
(coûts supplémentaires) 
OUI/NON 
CONSEQUENCES 
* (voir annexe) 
4. EFFETS SUR L'EMPLOI * (voir annexe) 
5. Y-A-T-IL EU CONCERTATION PREALABLE AVEC LES PARTENAIRES 
SOCIAUX ? 
OUI/NON 
AVIS DES PARTENAIRES SOCIAUX 
6. Y-A-T-IL UNE APPROCHE ALTERNATIVE MOINS CONTRAIGNANTE ? 
NON 
Au demeurant la franchise repose sur des dispositions 
Internationales acceptées par la Communauté. 
3& 
Point 3. 
CONSEQUENCES 
La suppression de la condition de non-équivalence aura pour effet de 
faciliter bien entendu l'importation de matériels tiers susceptibles de 
concurrencer des productions communautaires. Toutefois, les effets sur 
les P.M.E. en seront limités pour les raisons suivantes : 
l'application limitée de cettecondition dès 4 présent 
Pour les Instruments et appareils scientifiques seules cinquante 
demandes d'admission en franchis© environ sont refusées chaque 
année dans l'ensemble de la Communauté. 
Pour les appareils médicaux, la franchise ne s'applique qu'à un 
nombre limité de situations, celles tenant à des dons, sur 
lesquelles la disparition de la condition d'équivalence n'aura 
pas d'effet slgnifiticat If. 
Pour les objets destinés aux personnes handicapées, la condition 
d'équivalence n'est plus observée dans la pratique et donc sa 
disparition formelle ne devrait pas modifier le niveau des 
importation effectuées en franchise au demeurant limité. 
le fait que ie refus de La IranctLlse n'interdit pas l'importation 
et n'a pas un effet riiLllement__dLssuaslf sur la décision d'achat 
d'un matériel tiers par suite des taux relativement minimes des 
droits de douane applicables. La concurrence des matériels tiers 
s'exerce donc déjà pleinement. 
Le maintien de la perception la oius Importante puisque ia taxe 
sur la valeur ajoutée reste exigible à l'égard de toutes les 
Importations de ces matériels. 
ï\r 
l'Intervention partielle des P,M,,E, flans les productions 
concernées. En effet au moins pour les Instruments ou appareils 
scientifiques, ainsi que pour les appareillages médicaux, la 
production des matériels admis en franchise apparaît au travers 
des cas observés dans le passé être principalement le fait de 
firmes de taille importante et non de P.M.E. 
Les P.M.E. Interviennent ici dans les productions à façon ou dans 
les modifications d'équipements standard produits par de grandes 
firmes, mais souvent sans qu'il soit possible de reconnaître 
l'équivalence de leurs produits. 
4. EFFETS SUR L'EMPLOI 
Impossible à déterminer mais probablement Inexistant pour les raisons 
exposées ci-dessus au point 3. 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(91) 25 final 
DOCUMENTS 
N 02 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-91-082-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-69572-2 
PRICE 1-30 pages: 3.50 ECU per additional 10 pages: 1.25 ECU 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg