WRITTEN QUESTION E-3156/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Subject: Seizure of suspected contraband by HM Customs at UK points of entry

Does the Commission object to the seizure by HM Customs of large quantities of alcohol and cigarettes at UK points of entry from individuals suspected of importing these items not for personal consumption but in order to sell them to others, on the grounds that it violates the presumption of innocence, and, if so, would it have no objections were HM Customs instead to mark bottles, packets or crates which it suspects of being destined for sale with visible or invisible markings which could then form the basis of subsequent prosecutions?

Does the Commission also believe that it would be helpful if the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer were to reduce the current level of excise duty on these items to nearer the levels on the Continent, to reduce the incentive for individuals or gangs to bring large quantities into the U.K. for the purposes of illegal sale?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Under Council directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products(1), Member States are required to make a distinction between products subject to excise duty (e.g. tobacco products) when such products, having been released for consumption in one Member State, are held by private individuals in another Member State. If the products are held for the individuals' own use, then the excise duties are due in the Member State in which the goods were acquired. If, on the other hand, the products are held for commercial purposes, then the excise duties are due in the second Member State. In order to make this distinction between goods held for private or commercial purposes, the Member State must follow the indications laid down in Article 9(2) of the Directive 92/12/EEC. In cases of breach of the excise duty rules, the Member States are entitled to use such sanctions as they deem appropriate, as long as the sanctions remain necessary and proportional.

As the Honourable Member is no doubt aware, the Commission recently decided to initiate proceedings against the United Kingdom under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. The Commission has issued a letter of formal notice concerning the application of the above mentioned aspects of the harmonised excise duty rules and the proportionality of certain sanctions applied by the United Kingdom, and is now awaiting the United Kingdom's reply to this letter.

As concerns the methods for marking excised goods suggested by the Honourable Member, the Commission notes that such measures are not expressly covered by the harmonised rules of Directive 92/12/EEC. The Member States are, in principle, free to determine which methods are best suited to put the Directives into practice. It must however be emphasised that they may not apply measures which give rise to formalities linked to the crossing of the borders between Member States.

Regarding excise duty rates, the Commission maintains its view that, in the longer term, the convergence of duty rates would be beneficial to the smooth working of the Internal Market. However, the present Community legislation only fixes minimum rates, and the determination of national excise rates on alcohol and tobacco products, above the Community minimum rates, remains a matter for Member States to decide.

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.