WRITTEN QUESTION E-0979/00 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission. Re-importation of goods eligible for refunds.
Date: 2000-03-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: export refund, re-import

C 89 E/6

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

effective corporate taxation rates in the Community. The other is a consideration of remaining tax
obstacles to cross-border economic activity in the internal market. The first panel
is composed of
academics and other experts in the evaluation of effective levels of company taxation. The second panel
is composed of experts from the business community and social partners at a Community level (business
associations, trade unions, accountancy associations etc.). The first panel met for the first time on 9 July
1999; the date for its next meeting is not yet scheduled. The second panel met for the first time on 13 July
1999 and its next meeting is planned for 19 May 2000.

In addition, the Commission organises from time to time meetings of the heads of customs and tax
administrations and meetings of the deputy heads of indirect taxation departments, during which all major
issues within their areas of responsibility are discussed, so as to ensure co-ordination between the two
areas. A meeting may take place at the end of the year.

In addition to the committees and working parties operating under the auspices of the Commission, there
are specialised working groups in the taxation field meeting within the Council. The Council will be able
to provide the Honourable Member with information on these groups.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
(2) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.
(3) OJ L 24, 1.2.1992.
(4) OJ L 336, 27.12.1977.
(5) OJ L 126, 28.4.1998.
(6) COM(94) 219 final.

(2001/C 89 E/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0979/00

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Re-importation of goods eligible for refunds

European exporters are in practice being held accountable for the illegal re-importation into the
Community of a number of sensitive products which are eligible for refunds and are thereby being held
to account for circumstances beyond their control.

Will the Commission take steps to ensure that the legal and financial responsibility for any illegal re-
importation into the Community of goods eligible for refunds is placed on third country exporters and/or
authorities by requiring certificates of authenticity, for example?

Will the Commission introduce a rule whereby responsibility is transferred to the importer once the
customs formalities in respect of an exported product in a third country are completed?

Does the Commission agree that repayment should be required only insofar as the authorities are able to
prove the exporter(cid:146)s complicity or that re-importation occurred under circumstances within the exporter(cid:146)s
control?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 May 2000)

The Commission and the Member States have held numerous discussions on the question of reimporting
into the Community products eligible for export refunds, with a view to determining what mechanism
could be set up in order to prevent Community funds from being granted in respect of economic
operations for which the export refund system is not intended.

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/7

Recovering refunds from third-country exporters is not feasible. The existence of authenticity certificates
would in no way resolve the problem because products which are reimported may quite legally be eligible
for a reduction in, or exemption from, import duty.

Since the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) agreements(cid:146) entry into force, it has no longer
been possible to stipulate in a regulation that the importer is responsible for reimbursing the export refund
on reimportation into the Community. To do so would run counter to the Community(cid:146)s international
obligations.

Nor has it been possible to adopt the Honourable Member(cid:146)s proposed approach (whereby repayment
would be required only if the Community exporter(cid:146)s complicity could be proved) in respect of return
under preferential arrangements. Someone located outside the Community could arrange for trade to be
deflected by instructing firm A to export refund-eligible products to firm B for light processing in a third
country, after which firm C would import them into the Community and benefit (cid:129) quite legally (cid:129) from
reduced or zero import duty. Although it would be impossible to prove the Community exporter(cid:146)s
complicity in those circumstances, the operation would have been set up solely in order to divert
Community funds and nothing could be done about it.

Under Article 20(4)(d) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down
common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (1), the
refund must be reimbursed if the exported products are reimported into the Community without having
to reduced or zero customs duty at the time of
undergone substantial processing and are subject
reimportation. So that this clearly deterrent provision does not result in excessive restrictions for exporters,
it has been applied only to certain products which are particularly sensitive to deflections of trade. Nor
does the measure apply if such products are reimported under the returned goods system provided for in
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2)
or if more than two years elapse between when they are exported from the Community and subsequently
reimported.

(1) OJ L 102, 17.4.1999.
(2) OJ L 302, 19.10.1992.

(2001/C 89 E/006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1038/00

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Golf course at Is Arenas, Sardinia, Italy

Two golf courses, one of which is a nine-hole experimental course, have been built in the area of Is Arenas
(Narbolia and San Vero Milis municipalities) in Sardinia, which appears on the list of sites of Community
interest under Directive 92/43 (1) code ITB 0002228, since it consists of coastal woodland on sandy dunes
which includes priority habitats, and is in the Regional Nature Park of Sinis-Montiferru that is due to be set
up. The projects were not subject to an environmental impact assessment nor were any checks carried out
to establish whether there was any need for an environmental impact assessment (2). In order to build the
golf courses over 10 000 pinus pinea and pinus pinaster plants have been cut down (according to
information made public by the Is Arenas company itself) and profound changes to the site have occurred
as a result of earth moving and flattening operations carried out using scrapers and other heavy
machinery. In order to supply the water necessary for the maintenance of the greens, 18 water wells
have been sunk, 11 of which are operational, and a connection to the water supply network of the Land
Improvement Cooperative has been established. No data exist on the overall level of water used by the golf
courses. This is a matter of concern since a standard 18-hole golf course requires a great deal of water (3)
and the area has one of the lowest rainfall levels in Sardinia. The project is in danger of causing the
salinisation of the entire Habitat area and the drying out of the surrounding water table, with adverse
consequences for those who farm and live in the area. In addition, that fact that the land is sandy will
mean that the water table will be polluted by herbicides and pesticides.