WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3728/97 by Daniel VARELA SUANZES- CARPEGNA to the Commission. GSP and the countries of the Andean Pact and Central American Common Market - fraud affecting certificates of origin
Date: 1997-11-21
Institutions: European Parliament, VARELA SUANZES-CARPEGNA
Subjects: certificate of origin, customs formalities, fraud, guarantee, import, restriction on competition, sea fish, third country













EUR-Lex - 91997E3728 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E3728

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3728/97 by Daniel VARELA SUANZES- CARPEGNA to the Commission. GSP and the countries of the Andean Pact and Central American Common Market - fraud affecting certificates of origin  


Official Journal C 196 , 22/06/1998 P. 0011 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3728/97 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (21 November 1997)Subject: GSP and the countries of the Andean Pact and Central American Common Market - fraud affecting certificates of originCases of fraud have been detected with regard to certificates of origin for tuna imports by Community firms from third countries such as Colombia and Costa Rica.Given that the governments of the exporter countries act as delegates for the Commission and issue the certificates concerned, which come on official paper, why are the importing firms held responsible for this offence when they are acting in good faith in assuming that certificates issued by an official body in an authorized country are valid?Does the Commission not consider that this is unfair?Furthermore, why is it that all Community governments are not dealing with this issue in the same way, given that their companies are involved? Some countries do not require a guarantee for these imports, since the investigations have not been completed, while others do, placing their firms at a clear disadvantage vis-à-vis their competitors.Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (18 February 1998)The problem raised by the Honourable Member touches on the extensive problem area of how preferential tariff arrangements operate. The Commission adopted a communication ((COM(97) 402 final. )) to the Council and Parliament on this subject at the end of July last year.The specific problems of good faith and the standardisation of action taken by Member States in relation to recovery are given precise answers in that communication. With regard to 'good faith', the Commission is naturally obliged to comply with the findings of the Court of Justice namely, that confidence in the validity of the certificate of origin is not normally protected. This means that its validity may be contested if, for example, the goods to which it relates were not obtained in compliance with the criteria of origin. Likewise, however reliable the authorities issuing certificates of origin in a non-member country, the ability to contest their validity is still necessary, should fraud occur after a certificate is issued (e.g. attempted importation into the Community of a good other than that exported). To the Court of Justice ((Case of Van Gend & Loos NV; Joined cases 98/83 and 230/83; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 13 November 1994. See also, however, Faroe Seafood - Joined cases C 153/94 and C 204/94 - Judgment of 14 May 1997. )), all these points constitute, among others, a normal commercial risk.Action by the Member States lacks the desired uniformity because the Community does not have a single customs administration. The Commission will attempt to improve the situation either by means of a horizontal instrument, or under Decision No 210/97/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 19 December 1996 adopting an action programme for customs in the Community (Customs 2000) ((OJ L 33, 4.2.1997. )).