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. 
NoC 169/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 7. 85 
1. General comments 
1.1. In 1978 and 1979 the Council approved (Council 
Decisions of 19 December 1978 and 24 July 1979) 
amendments to the Revised Rhine Navigation Convention of 
1868, known as the Mannheim Convention. It is strange that 
the ESC was not consulted at the time of these Decisions, 
especially as they were based on Article 75 of the EEC 
Treaty, which stipulates that the ESC must be consulted. 
2.2. The Committee does, however, approve these 
Decisions, which make it possible to amend the Mannheim 
Convention to protect Rhine shipping from possible 
excessive competition from third country fleets, while not 
damaging the interests of nationals of the Community in any 
way and fully safeguarding freedom of navigation on the 
Rhine for vessels which have a genuine link with one of the 
Member States. 
1.3. Rhine shipping is largely carried on by enterprises 
established in the Rhine Riparian States. It is not very likely 
that companies from other Member States will step up their 
shipping operations on the Rhine. Nevertheless, the principle 
of freedom of movement for persons, goods, services and 
capital in the Community must be safeguarded and the 
achievement of a common transport policy must not be 
impeded. 
This requires, as far as Rhine Navigation is concerned, 
smooth coordination between, on the one hand, the 
international Rhine regime and the Central Commission for 
the Navigation of the Rhine (CCR) and, on the other, the 
Community and its institutions. 
1.4. On account of the need for smooth coordination 
between the two international systems, the Committee agrees 
that an EEC Regulation should lay down provisions which 
will make possible the entry into force in all the Member 
States of the CCR implementing Regulation determining 
how and on what conditions - including in particular the 
existence of a genuine link with one of the contracting States 
or Member States - a document certifying that a vessel 
belongs to the Rhine Navigation may be issued. 
1.5. The Committee also approves the details of the 
important condition that a 'genuine link' must exist between 
the vessel and the Member State issuing the document and the 
rules relating thereto. In practice it will, however, be 
necessary to keep a close watch to ensure that the rules are 
not circumvented. 
1.6. The Committee thinks that - with a view to 
precluding any possible misunderstanding - it would be 
better and also simpler to incorporate the CCR's 
implementing Regulation word-for-word in its entirety in the 
Regulation in the form of an Annex, merely adding those provisions that are necessary in order to facilitate 
communication between the CCR and the Community 
Member States that do not have any direct link with the 
CCR, as well as those provisions that are necessary for the 
incorporation into Community law of measures to apply the 
CCR's implementing provisions. 
In this connection it is pointed out that Article 1 of the CCR's 
implementing Regulation already stipulates that the term 
'contracting State' shall always include each of those States 
which are accorded equal status - hence those Community 
Member States that are not also contracting States. 
1.7. If the method opted for by the Commission in its 
proposal is retained, it is of the utmost importance that the 
provisions of the EEC Regulation and the CCR's 
implementing Regulation should be completely identical 
with each other in order to preclude differences of 
interpretation as far as possible. 
1.8. Subject to the reservation set out in 1.6 and 1.7 and 
the specific comments, the Committee approves the proposal 
for a Regulation. 
2. Specific comments 
The Committee considers that the text of the Regulation as 
proposed by the Commission should at all events be 
expanded and amended as indicated below. 
2.1. The third recital 
This should be expanded in accordance with section 1 of the 
Protocol of Signature to mention the possibility of 
withdrawal of the document if it loses its validity. 
2.2. The fourth, fifth and seventh recitals 
In these recitals the words 'implementing provisions' should 
be replaced by 'implementing Regulation' in accordance with 
the terminology employed by the CCR. 
2.3. The fifth recital 
Reference should be made here to the need for smooth 
coordination between the two international legal systems. 
2.4. The seventh recital 
The words 'in consultation with the CCR' should be added 
after 'Commission'. 
2.5. Article 2, paragraph 1 
The following should be added at the end: 'establishing that 
the vessel belongs to Rhine Navigation'. This will bring the 
wording into line with Article 2, first paragraph, of the 
CCR's implementing Regulation. 
8. 7. 85 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 169/9 
2.6. Article 2, paragraph 4, second subparagraph 2.7. Article 3, paragraph 4, second subparagraph 
This subparagraph should be amended. In both cases 
referred to here the Commission should see to it that the other 
Member States are informed. The words 'in agreement with the CCR' should be inserted 
after 'lay down'. 
Done at Brussels, 24 April 1985. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending for the third time Regulation (EEC) 
No 1430/79 on the repayment or remission of import or export duties (*) 
(85/C 169/05) 
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 Economic and Social Committee adopted 
the following opinion unanimously, apart from two absentions: 
1. The Committee welcomes the Commission proposal 
that duties may be repaid or remitted even in the event of 
failure to comply with the procedural requirements. 
2. At the same time, the insertion of new Articles into the 
basic Regulation would transfer to the Member States the 
responsibility for deciding on the repayment or remission of 
duties - a responsibility hitherto borne by the 
Commission. 
2.1. It is rational to decentralize in this way. The 
decision-making process is thereby expedited, to the 
advantage of administration and the economy. 
3. The Committee endorses the view that the right to 
repayment or remission should be forfeited in cases where 
non-compliance with the procedural requirements is due to 
serious negligence or deception on the part of the person 
concerned. It would however draw attention to an error in 
the German language version of the Commission document, 
which implies that even slight negligence would cause the 
right to be forfeited. 
4. The Committee recommends the deletion of the third 
paragraphs of the new Articles 4 (a), 6 (a) and 11 (a) to be 
H OJ No C 22, 24. 1. 1985, p. 10. added to the basic Regulation. These paragraphs provide for 
a reduction of the amount of duties repaid or remitted by 
10%, up to a maximum of 1 000 ECU. There is no 
justification for this measure, which would in any case lead to 
differing legal treatment for comparable circumstances. 
4.1. In view of the fact that the person concerned has sole 
responsibility for submitting proof that the conditions of the 
claim are met, the checking work of the customs authority 
can be confined to accepting or rejecting the sufficiency of 
this proof. It is not required to carry out its own investigatory 
work. The reduction cannot therefore be justified as a charge 
to cover an increased administrative cost. 
Since the Commission states that the reduction 'retains the 
character of the Community's own resources', the 
Committee regards it as unjustifiable to levy a charge for a 
service provided not by the Community but by the Member 
States. It would be logical for the administrative charge to be 
paid to the Member States, as is usually the case. 
4.2. Nor can the reduction be justified as a kind of 
educational charge aimed at 'encouraging the persons 
concerned to comply with the procedural requirements'. If