163.

I therefore propose that the Court give the following answers to the questions submitted by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division: 1. For the purposes of applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 2051/74 of 1 August 1974 on the customs procedure applicable to certain products originating in and coming from the Faroe Islands and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3184/74 of 6 December 1974 concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation for the application of the customs procedure applicable to certain products originating in and coming from the Faroe Islands, the rules concerning the burden of proof and the methods of proving the originating or non-originating status of the goods are a matter for Community law. They are as follows: — the burden of proving the originating status of the goods lies with the exporter vis-à-vis the Faroese customs authorities and with the trader responsible for carrying out the import formalities vis-à-vis the importing State; — vis-à-vis the Faroese customs authority, a Faroese exporter may establish the origin of the exported goods by any method; — vis-à-vis the importing State, the originating status of the goods is to be established by the production of an EUR.1 certificate issued by the Faroese customs authority; — proof to the contrary, the burden of which is to be borne by the competent customs authorities, may be adduced by any method. It is for the national court to ensure that those rules are complied with and to assess the probative value of the matters relied upon by each of the parties in discharging the burden of proof which they bear. 2. The customs authorities of an importing Member State may, without referring the matter to the Committee on Origin referred to in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 2051/74, set aside EUR.1 movement certificates on the strength of their own view, based on the report of a mission of inquiry carried out by the Commission, that those certificates are not valid, even though the competent customs authority of the Faroe Islands challenges the conclusions of the report and confirms the validity of the certificates issued. 3. (a) The criteria defining Faroe Island vessels in Annex IV to Council Regulation No 2051/74 and Explanatory Note 4 of Annex I to Commission Regulation No 3184/74 are to be read conjunctively. (b) The term ‘crew’ where it appears in those regulations must be understood as covering all persons engaged in the navigation and servicing of a vessel, including the performance of tasks linked to the economic activity carried out on board. It includes persons employed under a contract with an undertaking from a non-member country to work on the vessel as trainees or as unskilled hands below decks, irrespective of whether they are paid by the operator of the vessel or by the undertaking from the non-member country, and of whether their link to the vessel is permanent or temporary. (c) Where raw fishery products are not processed separately by reference to their originating or non-originating status, it is for the exporter to establish, by any method, especially by bookkeeping procedures, the exact proportion and thus the quantity of originating products contained in the finished product, that quantity alone being entitled to benefit from the preferential system established. If, in the event of subsequent verification, it appears that such proof has not been adduced for each consignment, the competent authorities of the importing Member State may levy duty in an amount equal to that which would have been payable if the origins of the goods in each consignment had corresponded proportionally to the origins of the raw materials brought into the factory in the year in which the import occurred. 4. The conditions for the validity of measures taken by national authorities for the post-clearance recovery of import duties pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979, on the post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such duties, are governed by national law. Community law does not preclude a national rule from providing that a demand for payment of a debt, of which part only is time-barred pursuant to Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1697/79, is void in its entirety. 5. (a) Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2164/91 of 23 July 1991 laying down provisions for the implementation of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the uncollected duties amount to ECU 2000 or more, the national authorities are not obliged to refer to the Commission for a decision as to the possibility of not taking action for post-clearance recovery of customs duties if they consider that the conditions in Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79 are not met. (b) Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79 must be interpreted as meaning that: — the error of the competent authorities may be an error of calculation, copying, interpretation or application committed, in certain cases, by the customs authorities of a non-member country or territory which the Community involves in the task of furnishing information relevant to the recovery of customs duties; — in order to determine whether the error was reasonably capable of being detected by the person liable for payment, it is necessary: — to inquire whether the rules in question are complex or, on the contrary, unambiguous; — to take into account the practical experience of the trader concerned; — to assess the care taken by the trader, by taking account where appropriate of such possibility as he had of acquainting himself with the relevant provisions of Community law and of himself ascertaining or establishing without difficulty the relevant facts to which those provisions apply, and also by considering whether, by the very nature of his functions, that trader renders himself liable both for the payment of duties and for the validity of the documents which he produces to the customs authorities; — the person liable must have complied with all the provisions laid down by the rules in force concerning his customs declaration; in particular, he must have supplied the competent customs authorities with all the information required for the customs procedure in question to be applied, if necessary on the basis of the distribution as between each part of a consignment of products falling within the scope of different provisions. It is for the national court to assess whether, on the basis of those criteria for interpretation, the conditions for applying Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79 are satisfied.