WRITTEN QUESTION P-2106/96 by Karla Peijs (PPE) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: Prohibition on the comprehensive guarantee for certain transit procedures

1. Has the Commission investigated how the objective of combating fraud under the provisions of Community customs legislation can be achieved with measures that affect bona fide business operators less adversely than the prohibition on the comprehensive guarantee as a consequence of Decision 96/37/EC ((OJ L 10, 13 January 1996, p. 44. )) of 20 December 1995? If so, what conclusions have been reached?

2. Has the Commission also investigated whether other variables that can influence risk can be involved in measures to combat fraud, such as the destination of goods or the identity of the recipient, and the commercial payment and delivery terms (payment in cash or to current account, continuous delivery contract)?

3. Should the reduction of the validity period of the so-called T1-document from 8 to 2 days be considered as an anti-fraud measure that could make a possible extension to the prohibition on the comprehensive guarantee no longer necessary?

4. Can the Commission state why, in taking this Decision, it went beyond the opinion of the European Court of Auditors (OJ C 303, 14 November 1995) in requiring a 100% guarantee provision only in cases of non-clearance of documents and of suspicion of fraud?

5. How will the Commission assess the first months of the prohibition on the comprehensive guarantee?

6. When, and on the basis of what criteria, will this assessment take place?

7. Will regular traffic with T2 goods also shortly fall within the scope of the prohibition?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1996)

To tackle the crisis currently affecting the transit procedures, which lies at the root of the Commission's communication of 29 March 1995 concerning fraud in the transit procedure, solutions foreseen and perspectives for the future ((COM(95) 108 final. )) and its communication of 3 April 1996 on action to counter transit fraud, ((SEC(96) 290 final. )) a working party has been set up to review all aspects of the transit rules and draft proposals for reform of the procedures.

That body is working in association with the Member States and will be consulting traders. It has already given thought to a number of guidelines aimed at controlling access to the arrangements and selecting traders who could be accorded special facilities and thereby not be subject to some of the more rigorous measures adopted to protect the financial interests of the Member States and the Community.

Diverse preventive and operational measures exist to counter transit fraud, covering a great many legislative and procedural aspects. These measures also have to cope with the great variety of forms such fraud can take. To identify the risks connected with certain transit operations, the Commission has encouraged the Member States to use risk analysis for targeting consignments at risk in order that special checks may be carried out at their places of departure and destination, employing a wide range of criteria relating not only to the goods (nature, origin and level of duty) but to the traders, circumstances and contracting parties involved in the transaction and geographical factors affecting transport.

The deadline for re-presenting consignments in transit is normally fixed in the light of the journey to be carried out (transport mode and length of journey). However, for practical reasons, a basic eight-day period has been laid down for all consignments not involving sensitive goods, for which the period must always be calculated on the basis of the distance to be covered. This allows movements of sensitive goods to be monitored more effectively and complements the temporary prohibition placed on the use of the comprehensive guarantee in order to safeguard the collection of the Community's traditional own resources and the national duties on such goods.

As was pointed out to the Honourable Member in the reply to her earlier Written Question P-491/96, ((OJ C 173, 17.6.1996. )) the Commission, in authorizing Spain and Germany to adopt measures temporarily prohibiting the use of the comprehensive guarantee throughout the Community for certain products vulnerable to fraud, followed the provisions of Article 360 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 (replaced by Article 362 of Regulation (EC) No 482/96 of 19 March 1996 ((OJ L 70, 20.3.1996. ))), though not without examining in depth the grounds for these applications and gauging the impact of detected fraud in terms of the own resources and national taxes evaded. It is worth noting that the increase in fraud involving the said sensitive products wholly justifies the adoption of the measures in question. The Commission has not only taken account of the Court of Auditors's observations concerning the inadequacy of transit guarantees (point 1.36 of the 1994 report of the Court of Auditors ((OJ C 303, 14.11.1995. ))), but has carried out in full the budgetary tasks assigned to it by the Council under Articles 205 and 209 of the EC Treaty.

Unless renewed, the temporary prohibition of the use of comprehensive guarantees should cease to apply on 31 December 1996. The Commission is currently drafting a set of criteria for the purposes of gauging the measure's impact in terms both of the protection of financial interests and of its repercussions on the activities of traders dealing in the products concerned. It is gathering the requisite information from the Member States and traders as well as using existing data.

Last but not least, the Commission is not planning to extend the temporary prohibition of the use of the comprehensive guarantee to T2 transit operations.