Case C-446/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 29 October 2002 in the case of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas against Gouralnik & Partner GmbH
Date: 2003-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs formalities, customs inspection, export refund, interpretation of the law

C 55/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.3.2003

1. Must Regulation No 2913/92 (1) (the Community Cus-
toms Code) and Regulation No 2454/93 (2) (the regu-
lation implementing the Community Customs Code), in
particular Article 379(1) of the regulation implementing
the Community Customs Code, be construed as meaning
that the customs debt arising by reason of an offence or
irregularity in connection with external Community
transit cannot be recovered by the office of departure
from the principal if the principal did not, before the end
of the eleventh month following the date of registration
of the Community transit declaration, receive the notifi-
the regulation
cation referred to in Article 379 of
implementing the Community Customs Code?

2. Does the fact that the office of departure did not follow
an administrative instruction for the transmission of
information laid down in the Customs Code Committee
(early warning system) or that the authorities in the office
of departure can be criticised for failure to notify in good
time have any bearing on the answer to this question?

( 1) OJ L 302 [1992], p. 1.
( 2) OJ L 253 [1993], p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
hof by order of that Court of 29 October 2002 in the case
of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas against Gouralnik &
Partner GmbH

(Case C-446/02)

(2003/C 55/12)

Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of
European Communities by order of
the Bundesfinanzhof
(Federal Finance Court) of 29 October 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 10 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas against Gouralnik
& Partner GmbH on the following questions:

1. Does an entitlement to an export refund exist at least at
the rate of refund applicable to the product actually
exported where it is established during a control by
the customs authorities that the declared and exported
consignment did not consist entirely of the declared
product but contained a proportion of another product
to which a lower rate of refund applied?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret
by order of that Court of 15 November 2002 in the case
of Fonden Marselisborg Lystbådehavn against Skattemini-
steriet

2. Does the fact that the product which was incorrectly
declared is similar to that actually declared have any
bearing on the decision?

(Case C-428/02)

(2003/C 55/11)

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, in accordance
with which criteria must it be determined whether the
declaration also covers the incorrectly declared goods?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of
the Vestre Landsret
(Western Regional Court) of 15 November 2002, received at
the Court Registry on 26 November 2002, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Fonden Marselisborg Lystbådehavn against
Skatteministeriet (Ministry of Fiscal Affairs) on the following
questions:

1) Must Article 13.B(b) of the Sixth VAT Directive (Council
Directive 77/388) (1) be construed as meaning that the
term ‘letting of immovable property’ includes the letting
of a boat site consisting of a section of a land-based port
area and of a defined and identifiable water-based area?

2) Must Article 13.B(b)(2) of the Sixth VAT Directive be
construed as meaning that the term ‘vehicles’ includes
boats?

( 1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).

Appeal brought on 11 December 2002 by KWS Saat AG
against the judgment delivered on 9 October 2002 by the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-173/00 between KWS
Saat AG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-447/02 P)

(2003/C 55/13)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 October 2002
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-173/00 between KWS Saat
AG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market