WRITTEN QUESTION P-0615/04 by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission. Role of certificates in rules of origin.
Date: 2004-02-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, anti-dumping duty, citizen-authority relations, customs formalities, customs fraud, customs harmonisation, customs regulations, labour shortage, originating product

C 84 E/820

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(cid:1) the USA is urging European airlines to employ air marshals on transatlantic flights;

(cid:1) the first training course for air marshals has been set up in Milan, a course which provides for training

exercises to be carried out at an airport near the city from 1 March 2004.

Does the Commission intend to draw up a European directive laying down rules for the aforementioned
sector, providing for, in particular, the presence of such security personnel on transatlantic flights?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

At the end of December 2003 and more recently in February 2004, the US authorities, acting on the basis
of information regarding potential terrorist threats, asked a number of European airlines to step up their
security measures on certain flights judged to be at risk. Some countries agreed to deploy police officers on
these flights, while others preferred simply to cancel the flights in question.

As things stand, Germany and Austria are the only two EU Member States to have had a Sky Marshal-type
programme in place for a number of years. Under the pressure of recent events, a number of other
Member States, including from among the new Member States, are considering deploying police officers on
sensitive flights or have already taken the decision to do so. A third group of countries continues to have
reservations about measures of this type, citing the risks associated with the presence of arms on board
and/or the greater effectiveness of pre-boarding controls on the ground.

The Commission has looked at the different positions adopted by the Member States. It would like to see
Sky Marshals included in an overall package of enhanced security measures that could be taken in the
event of terrorist threats on certain flights. It is in favour of joint discussions bringing together national
authorities responsible for national security and those responsible for civil aviation. With this in mind, at
the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 19 February 2004, the responsible Member of the Commission
proposed that the Council take an overall look at the flight security issue in order to arrive at a common
position.

Part of this work has already started with Austria’s organisation of a seminar on Sky Marshals, which was
held on 1/2 March 2004.

On the basis of the work carried out by the Commission in conjunction with the heads of the civil
aviation authorities in the Member States, the Council Presidency, acting on behalf of the Community and
its Member States, has written to the International Civil Aviation Organisation inviting it to address this
issue and provide the signatory States with advice.

(2004/C 84 E/0915)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0615/04

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: Role of certificates in rules of origin

In answer to my written question of 8 May 2003 (E-1590/03 (1)), the Commission says that it ‘(…)
1.
does not have any information about problems encountered by business as a result of errors by Member
State authorities which issue certificates of origin (…)’.

Is the Commission aware of the van der Rijken/Hoogerwerff case (application REM 4/2002)?

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/821

Does the Commission consider that it

is fair and reasonable and consistent with the general
2.
principles of sound administration that a trader such as Mr van der Rijken who relies on legally valid
certificates of origin issued by a Member State should incur penalties in another Member State as a result
of mistakes made by the Member State that issued the original certificate?

Is the Commission prepared to re-examine in this case, particularly since Mr van der Rijken was

3.
acting in good faith and the matter has now been going on for some time?

(1) OJ C 111 E, 15.1.2004, p. 201.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2004)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that application REM 04/2002 was the

1.
subject of a Commission decision of 23 December 2002. It is therefore well aware of this case.

2.
One criterion used for applying anti-dumping duties is the origin of the product, which must be
established under the Community’s non-preferential rules of origin. This differs from preferential origin,
where imports of products originating in certain third countries may in some circumstances be eligible for
preferential rates of duty.

The origin of products subject to anti-dumping duties has to be established by the interested party and
entered in box 16 of the Single Administrative Document (SAD) submitted on importing the products.
As the rules do not expressly provide for the use of certificates of origin it is not possible to use any
certificates that may have been presented in support of the import declaration as evidence. It is the
interested party’s responsibility to provide proof of origin by indicating it on the SAD.

The customs authorities of the Member State of importation examining the declaration submitted by the
interested party may perform any checks they deem necessary in accordance with Article 68 of the
Community Customs Code (1). Under Article 220(2)(b) of the Code, post-clearance recovery of duties may
be waived in certain conditions, for instance when the person liable for payment has acted in good faith in
the case of an error by the competent customs authorities.

In Mr van der Rijken’s case the certificates lodged with the Dutch customs authorities were issued by the
Chamber of Commerce of Espoo in Finland which cannot be considered as a competent customs authority
within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) as it did not furnish information carrying legal weight and relevant
to the recovery of the duties concerned.

Acceptance of an import declaration does not stop the competent authorities performing post-clearance
checks pursuant to Article 78 of the Community Customs Code, and Dutch customs’ acceptance of the
import declaration cannot be considered an error within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) of the Code.
On the contrary it was quite in order for Dutch customs, as they had doubts about the origin declared by
the interested party, to verify the origin of the products. The checks, indeed, confirmed that the goods
were of Chinese origin.

3.
The Commission is not therefore able to re-examine this case, especially as Mr van der Rijken,
as already explained, could not use the presentation of origin certificates as evidence. The rules in force do
not require such certificates to be presented and Mr van der Rijken was solely responsible for furnishing
proof of the goods’ origin.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, OJ L 302,

19.10.1992.