WRITTEN QUESTION E-0802/01

by Peter Liese (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Presentation of falsified Agrim import licences in connection with the release into free circulation of bananas from Central and South America

According to a request for official assistance made on 29 June 2000 to the competent authorities of the Member States, the Commission is investigating a number of companies regarding the falsification of import licences in connection with the importation of bananas from third countries into the Community. The amount concerned

is estimated by the Commission to be at least 200 000 tonnes. The Commission has been aware of such fraud since 1997. On 12 June 2000, in a case concerning Italy (Hortofruticola Acese), evidence was able to be furnished and the fraud was stopped.

The Commission:

1. Does its estimate of illegal imports of bananas into the Community refer to an annual amount or to the total amount of bananas imported fraudulently since 1997?

2. Is it the case that, in particular since 1998, imports of bananas involving fraud have led to serious disturbance on the market and to a steep fall in market prices?

3. Could the Commission indicate - giving a breakdown by year - the level of increase in producer subsidies since 1997?

4. In the Commission's view, is there a connection between the trend in producer subsidies and the market price trend?

5. In the Commission's view, what savings would have been made by the Community with regard to producer subsidies if the price trend in 1994-1996 had been maintained?

6. What losses of duties have been suffered by the Community in connection with imports of bananas without proper import licences?

7. Following the discovery of one of the cases of fraud, the Commission adopted without delay the regulation adding a new Article 26a to Regulation No 2362/98(1) with a view to preventing further fraud involving falsified import licences or unauthorised issuing of import licences. Why did the Commission not already take such measures when it began to suspect such fraud in 1997?

(1) OJ L 293, 31.10.1998, p. 32.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2001)

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has indicated that at this stage around 210 000 tonnes of fraudulent banana imports have been identified in the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. As the judicial enquiry is still in progress, the Commission is not in a position to give more information on the overall fraud assessment.

It is extremely difficult to judge whether the fraud has had an impact on the price of bananas and, if so, how great an impact. Other factors have had a more direct impact on price levels. In recent years, the availability of export bananas on the world market, already in surplus, increased by another 10 % primarily as a result of increased production in Ecuador. Free-on-board prices (FOB) of Ecuadorian bananas and the Community import price fell by more than 15 % between 1996 and 2000.

Other elements should also be taken into account, such as competition with other fruits, whether or not weather conditions are favourable to banana consumption, and the overall fruit consumption trend in the Community.

Unit production aid trends (EUR/100 kg):

- 1995: 27,18;

- 1996: 29,05;

- 1997: 24,81;

- 1998: 24,42;

- 1999: 29,69.

These figures clearly show that there is no direct link between fraud and trends in aid levels. In 1999 aid was more or less at 1996 levels, and 1996 is outside the period in which the cases of fraud were perpetrated.

Nor should it be forgotten that the flat-rate reference income, which is the reference income in calculating compensatory aid, was increased by 5 % for the 1998 marketing year and by 8 % from the 1999 marketing year.

Production aid is a type of deficiency payment. It covers the difference between the flat-rate reference income and the average price obtained in marketing Community production for a given year.

The answers to points 2 and 3 also cover this point.

The duties to be recovered should cover the difference between the rate of duty applicable outside the quota in force at the time of actual import and the preferential duty paid when the quotas were used with the forged certificates.

For the 210 000 tonnes of fraudulent imports identified at this stage, approximately 160 million of customs duties has been lost. Recovery proceedings have been launched in the Member States concerned.

When it learned of rumours that forged import licences had been used, the Commission made inquiries in the Member States. These replied that, in their view, no frauds had been perpetrated and imports had been carried out in line with the rules.

However, owing to the persistence of these rumours, other more detailed investigations carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in collaboration with the Directorate-General for Agriculture uncovered the first evidence of these frauds.

As soon as it had more detailed information on the cases of fraud, and in particular of the nature of those frauds, the Commission felt that it was essential to take a number of measures immediately to strengthen the monitoring of import licence arrangements in the banana sector. A Regulation was adopted by the Commission to this effect on 25 July 2000(1). It covers mainly the checks to be carried out by the body issuing the import licences on the authenticity of all licences/licence extracts used in the Community, the distribution of the list of operators registered for the banana import arrangements with the customs offices and the procedure to be followed by the customs services in the event of doubt as to the authenticity of the licences/extracts presented for the release into free circulation of the bananas.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1632/2000 amending Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community (OJ L 187, 26.7.2000).