No C 125/10 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 16.10.  74 
3.5.5.10.  (553)  Indication  of minority  interests  per 
company  should  be dispensed  with,  as this  might  lead 
to misinterpretation.  In law,  minority  shareholders 
only have  rights  in the company  in which  they  have 
a holding.  The  consolidated  accounts,  however,  are 
in part  based  upon  completely  different'  accounts  (e.g. 
hard  currency  accounts,  converted  foreign  currency 
accounts).  Moreover,  minority  shareholders  (also 
participate  indirectly  in subsidiaries.  In drawing  up 
the consolidated  accounts  in such  cases  a calculation 
is made  of the  minority  holdings  in partially 
consolidated  sectors  — i.e. setting  aside  intra-group 
profits,  etc.  This  means,  however,  that  minority 
holdings  can  no longer  be attributed  to individual 
companies. 
3.5.5.11.  (56)  This  requirement  can  only  be seen  in 
conjunction  with  consolidated  accounts.  It should  be 
connected  with  a 'situation  report'  and  the business 
prospects  for the whole  enterprise.  It would,  however, 
be inconsistent  for  the  prospectus  to be based  on 
individual  sets  of accounts  while  the  statement  of 
the company's  business  situation  was  founded  on 
the circumstances  of the group  as a whole. 
3.5.6.  Chapter  6 — Administration,  management, 
supervision 
(61) As  regards  the  persons  mentioned  in sub-
paragraphs  611  to 613,  it should  be sufficient  to give their  full  names,  address  and  post  held.  Further 
information  is only  of limited  value  and  therefore 
superfluous. 
3.5.7.  Chapter  7 —  Recent  development  and 
prospects  of the company 
Forecasts  about  the  business  prospects  of  the 
company,  which  are described  as 'estimates  or inten-
tions  which  might  not  materialize',  are  likely  to 
confuse  investors  and  give  them  a false  picture  of the 
company.  In spite  of the  indication  that  the  infor-
mation  required  is of a conjectured  nature,  it is 
difficult  to reconcile  such  information  with  prospectus 
liability.  Business  prospects  for the near  future  should 
be limited  to information  for  which  there  is an 
objective  basis.  Longer-term  forecasts  should  be made 
at the company's  own  discretion. 
Done  at Brussels,  17 July  1974. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Alfons  LAPPAS 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Directive  on the harmonization  of procedures 
for the release  of goods  for free  circulation 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has been  published  in Official  Journal  of the European 
Communities  No  C 14 of 15 February  1974,  pages  45 to 51. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 14 January  1974,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  100 of the Treaty  establishing  the Euro-
pean  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its Opinion  on the above  matter  at its 
122nd  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 17 and 18 July  1974. 
The full  text  of the Opinion  is as follows: 
16.10.74 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 125/11 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the  request  of 16 January  1974, 
from  the President  of the  Council  of the  European 
Communities  for an opinion  on the  proposal  for  a 
Council  Directive  on the harmonization  of procedures 
for the release  of goods  for free  circulation; 
Having  regard  to the  Treaty  establishing  the  Euro-
pean  Economic  Community,  and  in particular  Article 
100 thereof; 
Having  regard  to the  Decision  taken  by its Bureau 
on 29 January  1974  instructing  the  Section  for 
Industry,  Commerce,  Crafts  and  Services  to prepare 
an opinion  on the matter; 
Having  regard  to the Opinion  delivered  by the Section 
for Industry,  Commerce,  Crafis  and  Services  on 3 July 
1974; 
Having  regard  to discussions  at its 122nd  plenary 
session  on 17 and  18 July  1974,  sitting  of 17 July 
1974, 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
unanimously: 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  approves  the 
proposal  for  a Directive,  but  would  make  the 
following  comments. 
1. General  comments 
1.1. The  Committee  endorses  the  Commission's 
endeavours  to achieve  maximum  harmonization  of 
customs  clearance  procedures  for goods  entering  the 
Community.  What  we have  at present  is a tariff  union 
rather  than  a customs  union.  Each  Member  State 
applies  the  same  common  customs  tariff  and  the 
implementing  details  of this  tariff  are  covered  by 
Regulations  and  Directives  intended  to harmonize 
the conditions  of application.  Concepts  such  as 
nomenclature,  origin,  value,  period  in customs,  the 
time  limit  for payment,  etc.,  are covered  by detailed 
rules  which  have  led  to very  marked  progress 
towards  Community  harmonization. 1.2. However,  each  Member  State  has  maintained 
control  over  its national  customs  rules  and procedures 
and the common  customs  tariff  produces  a technical 
similarity  —  the  rate  of  duties  —  rather 
than a uniform  result.  Yet  it is extremely  important 
that goods  from  non-member  countries  entering  the 
Community  should  receive  the same  treatment  every-
where,  and  that  the  economic  result  should  be the 
same.  This  is not  the  case  at present  due  to.  the 
differences  between  current  practices  in the Member 
States.  The  result  is that  the  customs  union  still 
exists  only  in theory  and  that  relatively  few  goods 
are released  for free  circulation  outside  the Member 
State  for which  they  are in fact  intended. 
1.3. However,  the  substantial  change  in the  whole 
character  of customs  clearance  operations  should  be 
considered.  Customs  duties  were  for  a long  time 
looked  on as a material  levy  based  on physical  move-
ment  of goods.  A flat-rate  percentage  was  levied 
at frontiers  in order  to balance  trade.  The  role  of the 
customs  system  was  thus  absolutely  clear. 
1.4. This  is not  the  case  today.  A development 
which  it would  take  too  long  to describe  here  has 
entailed  a gradual  change-over  from  the  original 
concept  — which  it is fair  to say  was  based  on the 
toll system,  however  much  the techniques  may  have 
been  modernized  — to diversified  application  of 
complex  rules  covering  not only  the goods,  which  are 
the physical  object  of the transaction,  but  also  their 
financial  context,  indirect  services,  in short  the results 
and economic  content  of the whole  transaction.  This 
trend  is world-wide,  but  it is particularly  marked 
in the Communities.  We  need  only  cite  the rigorous 
and complex  implementing  procedures  of  the 
common  agricultural  policy.  The  same  pattern  occurs 
in respect  of the'other  products.  The  upshot  is that 
customs  clearance  can  no longer  be deemed  a single, 
isolated  operation  during  transport  which  has  no 
effect  on the  subsequent  status  of goods  and  for 
which  it would  be sufficient  to harmonize  and  adapt 
techniques  and  procedures. 
1.5. Furthermore,  the progress  which  remains  to be 
accomplished  with  respect  to harmonization  of public 
and plant  health  arrangements,  standards,  fiscal 
systems  and  monetary  policy  clearly  demonstrates 
that rules  on the procedure  for release  for free  circu-
lation  do not  suffice  to ensure  that  equivalent 
treatment  is applied  uniformly  throughout  the 
Community. 
1.6. The  result  is the  coexistence  of two  very 
important  concepts  in customs  techniques:  'release 
No C 125/12 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 16.10.  74 
for free  circulation',  a Community  concept  which  is 
currently  used  solely  for the purpose  of application 
of the common  customs  tariff,  and  'release  of goods 
for home  use',  that  is to say  release  of goods  in a 
Member  State  with  a combination  of  (i)  the 
conditions  of free  circulation,  (ii) conditions  resulting 
from  regional  and  local  requirements  which  will  still 
exist  when  the customs  union  has been  established  in 
all respects,  and  (iii)  conditions  depending  on the 
progress  still  to be made  in harmonization. 
1.7. The  Committee  feels  that  although  the proposal 
for a Directive  is a major  step  forward  for  which 
there  is an urgent  need,  it is not the complete  answer. 
1.8. The  Committee  approves  of the  choice  of a 
Directive  as the legal  instrument,  in view  of certain 
difficulties  which  would  arise  from  the adoption  of a 
Regulation  (because  of the administrative  machinery 
of the Member  States,  for example). 
1.9. However,  it feels  that  the  provisions  covered 
should  be incorporated  in a Regulation  or in a 
Community  'customs  code'  as soon  as possible. Clearance  through  customs  can  be accelerated  only 
if the  checks  which  are  extremely  necessary  can  be 
carried  out  by means  of ex post  facto  enquiries. 
Otherwise  any  attempt  at liberalization  of customs 
clearance  conditions  may  lead  to more  detailed 
immediate  checks  since  the authorities  responsible  for 
the checks  would  be afraid  that  they  could  not 
subsequently  verify  the exact  details  of transactions. 
1.12.  The  Committee  endorses  the  Commission's 
view  that  in cases  where  the  person  entering  goods 
is resident  in another  Member  State,  customs 
formalities  can  be genuinely  speeded  up only  if the 
customs  authorities  of the  importing  State  on their 
own initiative  or at the request  of the importer  can 
at any  time  obtain  in other  Member  States,  and accept 
as adequate,  authentication  of the  particulars  they 
require  for their  checks.  The  same  applies,  even  more 
strongly,  to the  recovery  of customs  duties  and 
similar  charges.  In other  words,  if clearance  is to be 
expedited  and  it is to be possible  for  anyone  to 
perform  this  formality,  then  the  Member  States' 
customs  authorities  must  have  possibilities  at Com-
munity  level  which  are the equivalent  of those  they 
currently  possess  in their  own  country  and  which 
have  allowed  the  introduction,  by various  means, 
of simplified  procedures  based  on a sort  of 'mutual 
contract'  between  themselves  and  individual 
enterprises. 
1.10.  The  proposal  for  a Directive  would  seem  to 
be primarily  concerned  with  harmonizing  procedures. 
Fundamentally,  Directives  prescribe  ends  but  not 
means.  Procedures,  however,  are  precisely  means, 
and the  Member  States  will  patently  seek  to fulfil 
the obligations  laid  down  in the  Directive  in their 
own way,  that  is to say,  by their  own  procedures. 
The danger  may  therefore  exist  that  in certain  cases 
the letter,  but  not  always  the spirit,  of the Directive 
will be observed.  Thus,  the provisions  of the present 
Directive  will  achieve  their  full  effect  only  if the 
Member  States  apply  them  also  for  the  release  of 
goods  for home  use,  if possible  using  the same  forms. 
Unless  this  is done,  it will  not be possible  in the near 
future  for customs  clearance  (release  for free  circu-
lation  and  simultaneous  release  for  home  use)  of 
goods  to be carried  out  in all the  Member  States 
according  to the  same  procedures  and  on the  basis 
of the same  printed  forms. 
1.11.  The  Committee  also  stresses  that  it is 
impossible,  in the  very  technical  field  of customs 
clearance  procedure,  to neglect  the huge  number  of 
harmonizations  which  remain  to be  carried  out. 1.13.  The  Committee  therefore  trusts  that  the 
necessary  efforts  will  be  made  to  this  end 
simultaneously  with  the implementation  of the Direc-
tive, which  may  otherwise  remain  a dead  letter.  The 
Committee  therefore  urges  that  the  proposal  for  a 
Directive  on mutual  assistance  for  the  recovery  of 
sums  paid  in error  in connection  with  the  common 
agricultural  policy,  and  of agricultural  levies  and 
customs  duties,  be adopted  by the Council  as rapidly 
as possible. 
2. Special  comments 
2.1 Article  3 
2.1.1.  Article  3 allows  'any  ... person  resident  in 
the Community'  to 'make  entry'  for  the  purposes 
of customs  clearance. 
16.10.74 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 125/13 
2.1.2.  The  Committee  sees  the  need  to avoid  the 
privileges  which  exist  here.  However,  it notes  that 
the complexity  of customs  operations  leads  to the 
creation  of a body  of specialists,  and  that  it is in 
the obvious  interests  of the  authorities  that  for-
malities  should,  where  necessary,  be carried  out  by 
professionals  with  the  necessary  training.  The 
Committee  hopes  that  the immediate  social  aspect  of 
the matter  will  not  be overlooked,  since  numerous 
frontier  crossing  points  are  still  too  often  the  sole 
base  for customs  clearance  firms,  although  the  trend 
towards  customs  clearance  inside  the  territory 
continues. 
2.1.3.  It should  at ail events  be ensured  that  the 
person  for whom  the goods  are intended  — in so far 
as he has himself  been  represented  by another  person 
for the  completion  of the  formalities  of release  of 
goods  for free  circulation  — is restricted  neither  de 
jure nor  de facto  to any  given  form  of representation, 
for example  by a declarant  who  is accepted  by virtue 
of the  domestic  provisions  of the  relevant  Member 
States.  This  provision  should  also  apply  to the 
representation  of other  persons  (e.g.  representation 
of the  person  dispatching  the  goods,  or the  carrier, 
etc.). 
2.2. Article  9 2.2.2.  It would  also  be desirable  to prohibit  amend-
ments  aimed  at cancelling  attempted  false  declar-
ations  because  of checks  which  had  been  or were 
being  made. 
2.3. Article  11 (1)—second  and  third  subparagraphs 
2.3.1.  This  Article  states  in particular  that  when 
examination  is made  of only  part  of the  relevant 
gOods,  the  results  of that  examination  are  to be 
considered  valid  for  all of them.  It is merely  stated 
in the  third  subparagraph  that  the  declarant  can 
request  an examination  of all goods  covered  by an 
entry.  It would  seem  that  a reasonable  compromise 
should  be found,  and  it is therefore  proposed  that  the 
third  subparagraphs  of Article  11 should  be reworded 
to read: 
'However,  in cases  of dispute  on the  part  of the 
declarant  concerning  the  results  of the  partial 
examination,  the declarant  may  request  that  such 
examination  be  continued  until  agreement  is 
reached  with  the customs  authority,  and  if appro-
priate  be extended  to all the goods  which  are the 
subject  of the relevant  entry.' 
2.4. Article  12 (3) (a) 
2.2.1.  This  Article,  which  introduces  a flexibility 
necessary  in case  of error,  allows  the  declarant  to 
amend  customs  entries  in respect  of any  item  except 
the date.  This  is too  broad,  and  could  constitute  a 
loophole  in the  rules  which  is liable  to lead  to 
serious  abuse.  The  Committee  therefore  proposes 
that it should  be stipulated  that  the  identification 
of the  relevant  consignment  of goods  must  not  be 
affected  by any  amendments  to an entry.  Account 
could  of course  be taken  of missing  and  extra  items, 
but the  goods  in question  would  have  to be at the 
very least  in the  same  consignment  and  of the  same 
commercial  nature. 2.4.1.  The  Committee  wonders  whether  the  ad-
ditional  conditions  which  are  provided  for here,  and 
which  lead  to needless  complication  of the  dispatch 
procedure,  are justified. 
Done  at Brussels,  17 July  1974. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Alfons  LAPP  AS