Case C‑46/16

Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

v

‘LS Customs Services’ SIA

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Community Customs Code — Non-Community goods — External Community customs transit procedure — Unlawful removal from customs supervision of goods liable to import duties — Determination of the customs value — Article 29(1) — Conditions for the application of the transaction value method — Articles 30 and 31 — Choice of the method for determining the customs value — Obligation imposed upon the customs authorities to state reasons for the chosen method)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 9 November 2017

Customs union—Common Customs Tariff—Value for customs purposes—Determination—Methods for determination—Application of the method based on the transaction value of similar goods—No requirement for the customs authorities to state reasons why the alternative methods set out in Article 30(2)(c) and (d) are not to be applied

Customs union—Common Customs Tariff—Value for customs purposes—Determination—Methods for determination—Non-application of the method based on the transaction value of identical goods—No requirement for the customs authorities to ask the producer to provide the information necessary for the application of that method—Requirement to consult all the information sources and databases

Article 29(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation No 955/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as meaning that the method for determining customs value laid down by that provision is not applicable to goods that were not sold for export to the European Union. (see para. 37, operative part 1)

Article 31 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 955/1999, read in conjunction with Article 6(3) of that regulation, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities are obliged to state, in their decision fixing the amount of import duties due, the reasons leading them to set aside the methods for determining customs value set out in Articles 29 and 30 of that regulation, as amended, before they could decide to apply the method laid down in Article 31 of that regulation, as amended, and the data on the basis of which the customs value of the goods was calculated, in order to enable the person concerned to assess whether that decision is well founded and to decide in full knowledge of the circumstances whether it is worthwhile for him to bring an action against it. It is for the Member States, exercising their procedural autonomy, to regulate the consequences of a failure by the customs authorities to fulfil their obligation to state reasons and to determine whether and to what extent such a failure may be remedied in the course of legal proceedings, subject to observance of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. (see para. 47, operative part 2)

Article 30(2)(a) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 955/1999, must be interpreted as meaning that, before it can set aside the method for determining customs value laid down by that provision, the competent authority is not required to ask the producer to provide it with the information necessary for the application of that method. That authority is, however, required to consult all the information sources and databases available to it. It must also allow the economic operators concerned to provide it with any information which may contribute to determining the customs value of the goods pursuant to that provision. (see para. 57, operative part 3)