PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) AMENDING REGULATION (EEC) NO 918/83 SETTING UP A COMMUNITY SYSTEM OF RELIEFS FROM CUSTOMS DUTY
Date: 1991-02-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: exemption from customs duties, scientific apparatus

OSÉ» COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

C0MC91)  25  final 

Brussels, 27  February 1991 

Proposal  for a 

COUNCIL  REGULATION  (EEC) 

amending Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 setting up 

a Community system of reliefs from customs duty 

(presented by the Commission) 

wm 

W1:.} ï 

-i 

•»fr 

EXPLANATORY  MEMORANDUM 

I. 

The  first  aim  of  this  proposal  Is  to  amend  the  provisions  of 

Title VI  (Articles  27  and  28)  of  Regulation  (EEC) No 918/83  by 

extending  the  administrative  simplification  contained  in  it  to 

cover  all  imports of  goods of  negligible  value. 

This  would  mean  that  the  simplification  measure  would  be  of  real 

use  since  national  administrations  would  be  authorized  not  to 

recover  all  the  minimal  amounts  of  duty  the  cost  of  collecting 

which  would  be  higher  than  the  amounts  collected,  owing  to  the 

opcioiing  costs  incurred. 

Furthermore,  the customs provisions would  be  aligned  as a  result  on 

the  tax  provisions  which  enable  exemption  from  value-added  tax  to 

be  granted  on  imports  of  negligible  value  up  to  a maximum  value  of 
ECU  22  (see  amended  Directive  83/181/EEC  of  28 March  19831).  This 

alignment  would  help  make  the  simplification  measure  even  more 

useful. 

II.  The  second  aim  of  this  proposal  concerns  the  review  of  the 

administrative  procedure  for  granting  reiIef  for  imports  of  certain 

scientific  instruments or  apparatus  Into  the  European  Community  (known 

as  "UNESCO"  rei iefs). 

1. 

This  system  of  reliefs  has  been  applied  in  the  Community  on 

the  basis  of  Community  provisions  since  1975  and  it  now  seems 

opportune  to  conduct  an  evaluation  of  its  operation  and 

usefulness. 

1 OJ  L  105, 23.4.1983, p. 38. 

2. 

Components  of  this  rei ief 

-  2  -

The  scope  of  this  relief  is determined  by  a number  of  criteria. 

2.1. 

The  beneficiary  must  be  an  educational  or  research 

establishment;  It  may  belong  to  the  public  sector  or 

to  the  private  sector,  but  in  the  latter  case  it  must 

be  approved  by  the Member  States'  authorities. 

2.2. 

The  instrument  or  apparatus  must  be  imported  solely 

for  non-commercial  purposes. 

2.3. The  instrument  or  apparatus  must  be  used  solely  by  the 

establishment  benefiting  from  the  relief. 

2.4.  The  imported  instrument  or  apparatus  must  be  considered  as 

scientific 

in 

accordance 

with 

objective 

technical 

character ist ics. 

2.5. 

There  must  be  no  scientific  instruments  or  apparatus 

of  equivalent  value  currently  manufactured  in  the 

Commun i t y. 

3. 

Petermipation  of  non-equivalence 

Since  the  criterion  referred  to  in  2.5.  above  has  to  be  asssessed  in 

the  light  of  all  Community  production,  the  Member  State  in  which 

relief  Is  requested  cannot  usually  provide  the  answer  on  its  own. 

That  is why  in practice  a  two-stage  procedure  has  been  introduced: 

-  3 -

3.1. Stage one  (without  the  Commission): 

The  Member  State  in  which  the  relief  is  requested  sends  a 

request  for  information  to  the  competent  authorities  in  the 

other  Member  States  (all  or  some)  In  accordance  with  a 

procedure  worked  out  in  agreement  with  all  the  Member  States 

in  the  Committee  on  Duty-Free  Arrangements  chaired  by  a 

Commission  representative.  The  authorities  conduct  a  survey 

of  their  countries'  Industry;  this  stage  lasts  at  least  four 

months,  and may  be extended  at  the  request  of  a Member  State. 

3.2. Stage  two  (with  the  Commission): 

If  following  completion  of  procedure  3.1.  no  decision  can  be 

taken  on  the  request  for  relief,  the  Member  State  concerned 

has  to  transmit  the  dossier  to  the  Commission  (Commission 

Regulation  (EEC) No  2290/83).  The  Commission  will  immediately 

distribute  copies  of  the  dossier  to  the  other  Member  States 

and  subsequently  a  translation  (In  English,  French  and  German 

only)  of  the  main  pages  of  the  documents.  The  Member  States 

have  three  months  in which  to  adopt  a  position.  If  a  Member 

State  puts  forward  a  duly  reasoned  objection  during  this 

period,  that  objection  Is  communicated  by  the  Commission  to 

the  other  11  Member  States  and  translated  in  the  same  way  as 

the  initial  dossier.  The  Commission  then  consults  the  Member 

States  In an  ad  hoc  group  convened  under  its  chairmanship  in 

Brussels.  In many  cases  one meeting  does  not  suffice  and  the 

dossier  is  then  re-examined  at  a  subsequent  meeting  of  the 

same  group,  and  even  at  a  third  meeting.  The  Commission  then 

adopts  a  decision,  which  must  in  any  event  be  taken  within 

nine  months  of  the  Commission's  receipt  of  the  request.  The 

decision  is  communicated  to  the  requesting  Member  state  and 

published  In  abridged  form  In  the  Official  Journal  of  the 

European  Communities. 

-  4  -

4. 

Evaluation  of  the  procedure 

The  complexity  of  this  procedure  does  not  need  Illustration:  the 

length  of  the  two  stages  described  In  points  3.1.  and  3.2.  is  In 

Itself  sufficient  to  give  an  idea  of  the  problem.  On  top  of  up  to  13 

months'  actual  examination  laid  down  by  the  Community  provisions, 

which  are  furthermore  difficult  to  keep  to,  there  are  the  periods 

arising  from  the  national  administrative  procedures,  which  means  that 

the  average  period  which  elapses  between  the  Introduction  of  the 

request  by  the  importer  and  the  final  reply  from  customs  is 

one-and-a-half  to  two  years. 

This  procedure  concerns  only  the  non-equivalence  criterion. 

The  establishment  of  this  criterion  may  reveal  divergent  interests 

among  Member  States,  and  it  is  therefore  essential  to  have  a  central 

arbitration  authority  (stage  two), and  if  there  is  arbitration,  this 

must  be  based  on  detailed  appraisal  of  the  dossiers.  As  in  practice 

the  dossiers  often  do  not  contain  all  the  information  required  for 

their  evaluation,  requests  for  additional  information  must  be  sent  to 

the  Member  States'  authorities.  A  technical  expert  from  the  Ispra 

Research  Centre  takes  part  in every  meeting  of  the  ad  hoc  group  (ten  a 

year). 

It  is difficult  to  discuss  the  cases  because  not  only  is  it  necessary 

to  compare  and  evaluate  the  capabilities of  two or  more  instruments  or 

items  of  apparatus  but  this  evaluation  has  to  be  carried  out  in  the 

light  of  the  specific  features  of  the  planned  research  project,  and 

this  frequently  leads  to  litigation,  which  continues  even  after  the 

Commission  has  taken  its  decision,  as  seen  from  the  remarkable  number 

of  cases  brought  before  the  Court  of  Justice. 

-  5 

The  complexity  of  this procedure  makes  it very  expensive,  particularly 

in terms of  human  resources: 

(a) 

in the Member  States; 

(b) 

at  Commission  level,  as  regards  the  departments  directly 

concerned  (DG XXI)  and  those  Indirectly  Involved  (Ispra 

Research  Centre,  translators,  interpreters  at  the  ten  meetings 

a  year); 

(c) 

In  the  Court  of  jusiice  and  in  the  Commission's  Legal  Service 

as  a  result  of  the  disputes  which  the  Court  is  quite 

frequently  called  upon  to  settle. 

5. The  role of  the  criterion  of  non-eouI valence  In the  system 

5.1.  Quantitative  aspect? 

The  number  of  requests  for  relief  is  between  600  and  700  a 

year  In the  European  Community.  It has  tended  to decline  over 

the  last  few  years.  Experience  shows  that,  of  all  the 

requests,  at  least  80% are  accepted  and  among  the  rejections  a 

large  proportion  are  due  not  to  the  equivalence  of  Community 

products  but  the  non-sclent ifIc  nature  of  the  apparatus 

imported. 

In 1989, of  a total  of  98  requests  rejected  at  national  level, 

of  a  total  of  530  dossiers  handled  direct  by  the  Member 

States,*  only  43,  i.e.  9%,  were  rejected  because  of  the 

existence of  Community  equivalents. 

*  Figure  Includes  only  those  dossiers  in  respect  of  which  the 

Information 

given 

was 

correctly 

presented. 

-  6 -

This  is the  usual  percentage  and  the  proportions are  the  same 

for  requests  handled  by  the  Commission.  It  may  be  concluded 

that  usually  a  maximum  of  10% of  the  requests  for  relief  for 

imports  of  scientific  instruments  or  apparatus  Into  the 

Community  are  rejected  on  the grounds  that  equivalent  products 

are available within  the  Community. 

5.2. Qua Iitatlve  aspects 

The  question  is  whether  the  equivalence  criterion  is  really 

justified  in economic  terms.  Since  the system  was designed  to 

encourage  scientific  research 

in  the  Community,  tariff 

protection  paradoxically  comes  into  play  only  when  Community 

production  of  such 

instruments  or  apparatus 

is  fully 

competitive  (equivalent) and  so does not  need  to be  protected. 

When  a  better  instrument  is  placed  on  the  market  by  a  firm 

outside  the  Community,  protection  of  Community  production 

immediately  ceases  to  apply.  It  must  therefore  be  admitted 

that  in economic  terms  the  usefulness  of  the  criterion  of  the 

equivalence  of  Community  products  is a very  relative concept. 

6.  Conclusions 

Given  its  limited  usefulness  and  the  relatively  small  number  of 

cases  in which  it plays  a decisive  role, the Commission  has come  to 

the  conclusion  that  the  equivalence  criterion  is  not  worth 

retaining  in the system  of  "UNESCO"  reliefs. 

The  abolition  of  this  criterion  is  therefore  proposed,  but  it  is 

understood  that  the  granting  of  relief  remains  subject  to  the 

criteria  listed under  2.1., 2.2., 2.3. and  2.4. above. 

-  7  -

When  the  equivalence  criterion  is abolished,  the  two-tier  procedure 
referred  to under  3.1.  and  3.2.  above  will  no  longer  apply.  Rather 
than  take  decisions  on  individual  cases  of  imports  of  scientific 
instruments  or  apparatus,  the  Commission  will  confine  itself  to 
establishing  general  guide IInes  relating  to  the  criteria  still 
applicable,  similar  to  the  steps  it  usually  takes  to  ensure  that 
customs  legislation  is  uniformly  applied.  The  application  of  the 
criteria  in  individual  cases  of  requests  for  reliefs  will  then 
become  the  sole  responsibility  of  the  relevant  national  authorities 
in the  light  of  these  general  guidelines. 

The  abolition  of  the  equivalence  criterion  will  also  make  the  work 
of  the  national  administrations  easier;  in view of  the  uncertainty 
regarding  the  assessment  of  this  criterion,  at  present  they  do  not 
always  manage  to  take  unambiguous  decisions  consistent  with  those 
adopted  by  their  counterparts  in the  other  Member  States. 

Other  cases  In  which 
a p p l i c a b le  under  Community  rules 

iilfi  e q u i v a l e n ce 

C r i t e r l QD 

LS  at 

present 

third  aim  of  the  proposed 

The 
a m e n d m e n ts  p r o p o s ed  for  s c i e n t i f ic 
other  e d u c a t i o n a l,  s c i e n t i f ic  or  cultural  g o o d s. 

r e g u l a t i on 

Is  to  extend  the 
instruments  and  a p p a r a t us  to 

The  p r o v i s i o ns  at  present  a p p l i c a b le  p r o v i de  for the a p p l i c a t i on  of 
an  e q u i v a l e n ce  c r i t e r i on  and  rules  of  p r o c e d u re  similar  to  those 
set  out  above  for  Instruments  and  a p p a r a t us  intended  for  medical 
r e s e a r c h,  e s t a b l i s h i ng  medical  d i a g n o s es  or  c a r r y i ng  out  medical 
treatment  and for a r t i c l es  for the u se of  h a n d i c a p p ed  p e r s o ns  other 

than  blind  people» 

-  8 

It  appears  even  more  pointless  to  maintain  these  provisions  here 
than  In  the  case  of  scientific  instruments  and  apparatus,  for  the 
fol lowing  reasons: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

The  relief  for  medical  equipment  is  very  limited  in  scope 
since  it applies only  to goods  imported  as a gift.  There  is a 
danger  that  the  complexity  of  applying  the  equivalence 
criterion  will  deprive  this  limited  measure  of  the  little 
substance  it has. 

With  regard  to  imports  of  goods  for  the  use  of  handicapped" 
persons,  the  Member  States  have  of  their  own  accord  stopped 
Implementing  the  two-tier  procedure  provided  for  in  Community 
texts  and over  the  last  ten years of operation  of  these  relief 
arrangements  have  adopted  a  liberal  attitude  which  meant  that 
the équivalence  criterion  was  disregarded. 

In  any  event,  only  one  case  was  put  to  the  Commission,  and 
this  happened  in  1979,  immediately  after  the  adoption  of  the 
first  Community  measures  establishing  a relief  in this sphere. 

The  information  supplied  by  the  Member  States  during  an 
exchange  of  views  arranged  by  the Commission  revealed  that  the 
national  administrations  had  not  implemented  any  measure 
designed  to  assess  the  equivalence  of  the  goods  in  question, 
and  the  recognition  of  the  right  to the  relief  depended  on  the 
status  of  the  recipient  (handicapped  person  or  specialized 
institution) and  the nature of  the equipment  imported  (article 
specially  designed  for  a handicapped  person). 

The  equivalence  criterion  is  still  more  difficult  to  apply 
than  in the  case of  scientific  instruments  or  apparatus  owing 
to  the  impossibility  of  keeping  solely  to  objective  technical 
data, 
differing 
interpretations, as already  pointed  out. 

themselves 

which 

open 

are 

to 

in 

-  9 .-

Apart  from  these quite  specific  reasons,  It would  of  course  be  very 

strange  for  the  abolition  of  the  equivalence  criterion  and  the 

resulting  rules  of  procedure  not  to  be  extended  to  medical 

equipment  and  articles  for  the  use  of  handicapped  persons,  since 

these  goods  have  always  been  linked,  in  legislative  terms,  with 

scientific  instruments and  apparatus  in order  to form  a  homogeneous 

whole within  the  reliefs  system. 

In  order  to  maintain  the  similarity  between  the  wording  of  the 

Articles,  this  being  a means of  stressing  the  link, the  wording  of 

the amendments  contained  in this Regulet Ic •  \z  identical. 

IV.  The  text  resulting  from  the  proposed  amendments,  as  set  out  in 

Annexes  I to  IV  to  the  proposed  regulation,  differs  from  the  present 

text  as  fol lows: 

1. 

For  goods of  negligible value: 

extension  of  the  relief  to  all  direct  imports  from  a 

non-Community  country, up  to a value of  ECU 22. 

2. 

For  scientific  instruments  and  apparatus,  medical  apparatus 

and  articles  intended  for  handicapped  persons: 

abolition of  the non-equivalence  condition; 

introduction of  exclusions  for  certain equipment; 

provision  for  drawing  up  a  list of  equipment  which  may 

be  imported  duty  free  as  part  of  the  implementing 

provisions. 

The  last  two  components  are  intended  to  prevent  any  danger  of 

misuse  which  might  result  from  the  abolition  of  the 

non-equivalence  condition. 

V. 

Parliament  does  not  have  to  be  consulted  on  this  proposal  for  a 

regulation  since  it  is based  on Article  28 of  the  EEC  Treaty. 

M 

Proposal  for 

Council  Regulation  (EEC) No.../.. 

of  ... 

amending  Regulation  (EEC) No 918/83  setting  up 

a Community  system  of  reliefs  from  customs  duty 

The Council  of  the  European  Communities, 

Having  regarc  u  u.c  Treaty  establishing  tht  European  Economic  Community, 

and  in particular  Article  28  thereof, 

Having  regard  to  the  proposal  from  the  Commission, 

Whereas  the  administrative  simplification  provided  for  in  Article  27  of 

Council  Regulation  (EEC) No  918/83  of  28 March  1983  setting  up  a  Community 

system  of  reliefs  from  customs  duty  must,  if  it  is  to  be  effective,  be 

applied  to  all  imports  of  goods  of  negligible  value; 

Whereas  the  whole  of  Title  VI  of  Regulation  (EEC) No  918/83  must  be  amended 

accordingly; 

Whereas  the  provisions  of  Articles  52  to  56,  63a  and  63b,  and  72  to  74  of 

Regulation  (EEC) 918/83 must  be  revised  in the  light  of  experience  in order 

to  remove  conditions  which  are  expensive  and  complicated  to  apply  and  thus 

to  facilitate  imports  of  the  goods  in question; 

M. 

Whereas  the  condition  of  non-equivalence  of  Community  products  should 

therefore  be  abolished,  since,  where  It  Is  still  really  applied,  it  does 

not  succeed  In  providing  effective  protection  as  It  comes  too  late  In  the 

process  of  development  of  these  products,  and  since  its  implementation  is 

fraught  with  disputes  amongst  experts  which  can  sensibly  be  settled  only  by 

more  or  less  systematically  giving  way  to  the  importer's  interests  and  by 

recognizing  his  right  to  a  relief  owing  to  the  special  circumstances 

surrounding  his  Import, 

HAS  ADOPTED  THIS  REGULATION: 

Article 1 

The  provisions  of  Articles  27,  52  to  56,  63a  and  63b,  and  72  to  74  of 

Regulation  (EEC) No  918/83  are  hereby  replaced  by  the  corresponding  new 

provisions  set  out  in Annexes  I to  IV  respectively  to  this  Regulation. 

Article 2 

The  references  made  in  Regulation  (EEC)  No  918/83  to  the  provisions  of 

Articles  27,  52  to  56,  63a  and  63b  and  72  to  74  of  Regulation  (EEC)  918/83 

must  be  amended  accordingly. 

Article 3 

This  Regulation  shall  enter  Into  force  on  the  third  day  following  its 

publication  In  the Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities. 

It  shall  apply  from  1 January  1992. 

This  Regulation  shall  be  binding  in  its entirety  and  directly  applicable  in 

at I Member  States. 

Done  at  Brussels,  ... 

For  the  Council 

The  President 

M 

ANNEX 

A 

TITLE  VI 

GOODS  OF  NEGLIGIBLE  VALUE 

Article  27 

Subject  to Article  28, any  goods of  negligible  value  dispatched  direct  from 

a  third  country  to  a  natural  or  legal  person  in  the  Community  shall  be 

admitted  free of  import  duties. 

'Goods  of  negligible  value'  means  goods  the  intrinsic  value  of  which  does 

not  exceed  a  total  of  ECU  22. 

Article  23 

The  relief  shall  not  apply  to  the  following: 

(a) alcoholic  products; 

(b) perfumes  and  toilet  waters; 

(c) tobacco  or  tobacco  products. 

ANNEX  M 

fi 

Articles  52 to 56 

Article 52 

1. Subject  to Articles  53 to 58, scientific  instruments  and  apparatus  which 

are not  Included  In Article  51  shall  be admitted  free of  import  duties when 

they  are  imported  exclusively  for  non-commercial  purposes. 

2.  The  relief  referred  to  in  paragraph  1  shall  be  limited  to  scientific 

instruments  and  apparatus which  are  intended  for: 

-  either  public  establishments  principally  engaged  in  education  or 

scientific  research  and  those  departments  of  public  establishments 

which  are  principally  engaged  in education  or  scientific  research, 

-  or  private  establishments  principally  engaged  in  education  or 

scientific  research  and  approved  by  the  competent  authorities  of 

the Member  States  to receive  such  articles  duty  free. 

Article  53 

The  relief  shall  also apply  to: 

(a)  spare  parts,  components  or  accessories  specifically  suitable  for 

scientific  instruments  or  apparatus,  provided  that  such  spare  parts, 

components or  accessories  are  imported  at  the same  time as such  instruments 

or  apparatus  or,  where  they  are  imported  subsequently,  that  they  can  be 

identified 

as 

being 

intended 

for 

instruments 

or 

apparatus: 

fi 

which  have  previously  been  admitted  duty  free,  provided  that  such 

instruments  or  apparatus  are  still  of  a  scientific  nature  at  the  time 

when  relief  is  requested  for  the  specific  spare  parts,  components  or 

accessories,  or 

which  would  be  entitled  to  relief  at  the  time  when  such  relief  is 

requested  for  the  specific  spare  parts,  components  or  accessories; 

(b)  tools  to  be  used  for  the  maintenance,  checking,  calibration  or  repair 

of  scientific  instruments  or  apparatus,  provided  that  these  tools  are 

imported  at  the  same  time  as  such  instruments  ana  apparatus  or,  where  they 

are  imported  subsequently,  that  they  can  be  identified  as  being  intended 

for  instruments  or  apparatus: 

which  have  previously  been  admitted  duty  free,  provided  that  such 

instruments  or  apparatus  are  still  of  a  scientific  nature  at  the  time 

when  relief  is requested  for  the  tools, or 

which  would  be  entitled  to  relief  at  the  time  when  such  relief  is 

requested  for  the  tools. 

A 

Article 54 

For  the  purposes  of  Articles  52  and  53: 

'scientific  instrument  or  apparatus' means  any  instrument  or  apparatus 

which,  by  reason  of  its  objective  technical  characteristics  and  the 

results  which  it makes  it possible  to obtain,  Is mainly  or  exclusively 

suited  to scientific  activities, 

'imported  for  non-commercial  purposes' shall  be  considered  to  apply  to 

scientific 

instruments  or  apparatus 

intended 

to  be  used  for 

non-profit-making  scientific  research  or  educational  purposes. 

Article  55 

No  relief  shall  in  any  event  be  granted  for  items  of  equipment  in  common 

use  and  household  and  domestic  equipment,  whether  or  not  used  directly  in 

educational  activities  or  scientific  research. 

Article  5g 

A  list  of  instruments  and  appliances which  may  be  imported  duty  free  shall 

be  drawn  up  if  necessary,  in  accordance  with  the  procedure  laid  down  in 

Article  143  (2) and (3). 

ANNEX 

I II 

/& 

TITLE XIVa 

INSTRUMENTS  AND  APPARATUS  INTENDED  FOR  MEDICAL  RESEARCH,  ESTABLISHING 

MEDICAL DIAGNOSES OR CARRYING OUT MEDICAL TREATMENT 

Article 63a 

1. 

Instruments  and  apparatus  intended  for  medical  research, establishing 

medical  diagnoses  or  carrying  out  medical  treatment  which  are  donated 

either  by  a  charitable  or  philanthropic  organization  or  by  a  private 

individual  to  health  authorities,  hospital  departments  or  medical 

research  institutions  approved  by  the  competent  authorities  of  the 

Member  States  to  receive  such  articles  duty  free,  or  which  are 

purchased  by  such  health  authorities,  hospitals  or  medical  research 

institutions  entirely  with  funds  supplied  by  a  charitable  or 

philanthropic  organization  or  with  voluntary  contributions,  shall  be 

admitted  free of  import  duties, always provided  that  it  is established 

that: 

(a)  the  donation  of  the  instruments  or  apparatus  in question  does 

not  conceal  any  commercial  Intent on  the part  of  the donor; 

and 

(b)  the  donor  is  in no way  connected  with  the manufacturer  of  the 

instruments or  apparatus  for which  relief  is requested. 

2. 

The  relief  shall  also apply, subject  to the same conditions, to: 

(a)  spare  parts,  components  or  accessories  specifically  suitable 

for  the  above  instruments  or  apparatus,  provided  that  these 

spare  parts,  components  or  accessories  are  imported  at  the 

same  time as such  instruments and  apparatus or, where  they  are 

imported  subsequently,  that  they  can  be  identified  as  being 

Intended  for  instruments or  apparatus previously  admitted  duty 

free-, 

h 

(b)  tools  to be  used  for  the maintenance,  checking,  calibration  or 

repair  of  instruments  or  apparatus,  provided  that  these  tools 

are  imported  at  the  same  time  as  such  instruments  and 

apparatus  or,  where  they  are  imported  subsequently,  that  they 

can  be  identified  as  being  intended  for  instruments  or 

apparatus  previously  admitted  duty  free. 

Article  6 3P 

For  the  purposes  of  Article  63a,  and  in  particular  with  regard  to  the 

instruments  or  apparatus  and  the  recipient  bodies  referred  to  therein, 

Articles  55, 56, 57  and  58  shall  apply  mutatis  mutandis. 

ANNEX 

IY 

M/ 

Articles  72  to  74 

2.  Articles  for  the  use  of  other  handicapped  persons. 

Article  72 

1. Articles  specially  designed  for  the  education,  employment  or  social 

advancement  of  physically  or  mentally  handicapped  persons  other 

than  blind  persons  shall  be  admitted  free  of  Import  duties  where 

they  are  imported: 

either  by  handicapped  persons  themselves  for  their  own  use; 

or  by  institutions  or  organizations  that  are  principally 

engaged  in  the  education  of  or  the  provision  of  assistance  to 

handicapped  persons  and  are  authorized  by  the  competent 

authorities  of  the  Member  States  to  receive  such  articles  duty 

free. 

2.  The  relief  referred  to  in  paragraph  1  shall  apply  to  spare  parts, 

components  or  accessories  specifically 

for 

the  articles 

in 

question,  and  to  the  tools  to  be  used  for  the  maintenance, 

checking,  calibration  or  repair  of  the  said  articles  provided  that 

such  spare  parts,  components,  accessories  or  tools  are  imported  at 

the  same  time  as  the  said  articles,  or,  where  they  are  imported 

subsequently,  that  they  can  be  Identified  as  being  intended  for 

articles  which  previously  admitted  duty  free,  or  which  would  be 

entitled  to  relief  at  the  time  when  such  relief  is  requested  for 

the  specific  spare  parts,  components  or  accessories  and  tools  in 

question. 

# 

'  Article  73 

No  relief  shall  be granted  for  the  following: 

-  articles 

intended 

for 

the  treatment  or 

rehabilitation  of 

handicapped  persons; 

-  diagnostic  and  testing  equipment  used  by medical  institutions; 

items  of  equipment  in  common  use  and  household  and  domestic 

equipment ; 

in general  terms,  all  articles  which  have  simply  been  modified  and 

have  not  had  their  technical  characteristics  adapted  to  make  them 

suitable  for  use  solely  by  handicapped  persons. 

Article  74 

A  list  of  articles  which  may  be  admitted  duty  free  shall  be  drawn  up,  if 

necessary,  in  accordance  with  the  procedure  laid  down  in  Article  143  (2) 

and (3). 

FICHE  FINANCIERE 

1. 

Ligne  budgétaire  concernée  : Chap.  12 art.  120 

2. 

Intitulé  de  I 'act ion  : Proposition  de  modification  du  règlement 

(CEE)  n' 

918/83 

du 

Conseil 

du 

28/03/1983 

relatif 

à 

l'établissement 

du 

régime 

communautaire 

des 

franchises 

douanières. 

3. 

Base  Juridique  : Art.  28 du  Traité-CEE. 

4. 

OblectIf  de  I'action  : Suppression  d'une  des  conditions  prévues 

pour  l'octroi  de  I?  franchise  à  I'Importâtior  C'T  instruments  CJ 

appareils  scientifiques,  des appareillages médicaux  et  des  objets 

destinés aux  personnes  handicapées. 

5. 

Coût de l'action : 

La  suppression  de  la  condition  de  non-équivalence  de  productions 

communautaires  va  entraîner  la  non  perception  de  ressources 

propres  (droit  de  douane)  dans  un  nombre  de  cas  en  fait  très 

limité  : 

-  une  cinquantaine  dans  l'ensemble  de  la  Communauté  pour  les 

Instruments  et  appareils  scientifiques, 

-  un  nombre  plus  réduit  pour  les appareillages  médicaux, 

-  probablement  aucun  pour  les  objets  destinés  aux  personnes 

handicapées  dans  la mesure  où  la  condition  de  non-équivalence 

n'est  plus  réellement  appliquée  par  les Etats  membres. 

Il  n'est  pas  possible  de  chiffrer  très  précisément  l'Incidence 

financière  qui  doit  rester  minime. 

Fiche d'Impact  de certains actes  législatifs sur  les PME et  l'emploi 

AS 

1. 

OBLIGATIONS ADMINISTRATIVES DECOULANT DE L'APPLICATION DE 

LA LEGISLATION POUR LES ENTREPRISES 

NEANT 

2. 

AVANTAGES  POUR L'ENTREPRISE 

OUI/NON 

LESQUELLES 

3. 

INCONVENIENTS POUR L'ENTREPRISE 

(coûts supplémentaires) 

OUI/NON 

CONSEQUENCES 

* (voir annexe) 

4. 

EFFETS SUR L'EMPLOI * (voir annexe) 

5. 

Y-A-T-IL  EU CONCERTATION PREALABLE AVEC LES PARTENAIRES 

SOCIAUX ? 

OUI/NON 

AVIS DES PARTENAIRES SOCIAUX 

6. 

Y-A-T-IL UNE APPROCHE ALTERNATIVE MOINS CONTRAIGNANTE ? 

NON 

Au  demeurant  la  franchise  repose  sur  des  dispositions 

Internationales acceptées par  la Communauté. 

3& 

Point  3. 

CONSEQUENCES 

La  suppression  de  la  condition  de  non-équivalence  aura  pour  effet  de 

faciliter  bien  entendu  l'importation  de matériels  tiers  susceptibles  de 

concurrencer  des  productions  communautaires.  Toutefois,  les  effets  sur 

les  P.M.E.  en  seront  limités  pour  les  raisons  suivantes  : 

l'application  limitée  de  cettecondition  dès  4  présent 

Pour  les  Instruments  et  appareils  scientifiques  seules  cinquante 

demandes  d'admission  en  franchis©  environ  sont  refusées  chaque 

année  dans  l'ensemble  de  la  Communauté. 

Pour  les  appareils  médicaux,  la  franchise  ne  s'applique  qu'à  un 

nombre  limité  de  situations,  celles  tenant  à  des  dons,  sur 

lesquelles  la  disparition  de  la  condition  d'équivalence  n'aura 

pas  d'effet  slgnifiticat If. 

Pour  les  objets  destinés  aux  personnes  handicapées,  la  condition 

d'équivalence  n'est  plus  observée  dans  la  pratique  et  donc  sa 

disparition  formelle  ne  devrait  pas  modifier  le  niveau  des 

importation  effectuées  en  franchise  au  demeurant  limité. 

le  fait  que  ie  refus  de  La IranctLlse n'interdit  pas  l'importation 

et  n'a  pas  un  effet  riiLllement__dLssuaslf  sur  la  décision  d'achat 

d'un  matériel  tiers  par  suite  des  taux  relativement  minimes  des 

droits  de  douane  applicables.  La  concurrence  des  matériels  tiers 

s'exerce  donc  déjà  pleinement. 

Le  maintien  de  la  perception  la  oius  Importante  puisque  ia  taxe 

sur  la  valeur  ajoutée  reste  exigible  à  l'égard  de  toutes  les 

Importations  de  ces  matériels. 

ï\r 

l'Intervention  partielle  des  P,M,,E,  flans  les  productions 

concernées.  En  effet  au  moins  pour  les  Instruments  ou  appareils 

scientifiques,  ainsi  que  pour  les  appareillages  médicaux,  la 

production  des  matériels  admis  en  franchise  apparaît  au  travers 

des  cas  observés  dans  le  passé  être  principalement  le  fait  de 

firmes de  taille  importante et  non de P.M.E. 

Les P.M.E.  Interviennent  ici dans  les productions à façon ou  dans 

les modifications  d'équipements  standard  produits  par  de  grandes 

firmes,  mais  souvent  sans  qu'il  soit  possible  de  reconnaître 

l'équivalence  de  leurs produits. 

4. 

EFFETS SUR  L'EMPLOI 

Impossible  à  déterminer  mais  probablement  Inexistant  pour  les  raisons 

exposées ci-dessus au point  3. 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(91) 25 final 

DOCUMENTS 

N 

02 

Catalogue number : CB-CO-91-082-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-69572-2 

PRICE 

1-30 pages: 3.50 ECU 

per additional 10 pages: 1.25 ECU 

Office for Official  Publications of the European  Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg