WRITTEN QUESTION E-0637/04 by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission. Inconsistencies in the Community Customs Code (CCC).
Date: 2004-03-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: CCT duties, citizen-authority relations, customs debt, customs drawback, customs regulations, interpretation of the law, legislative drafting

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/827

Does the EU really impose this restriction? Is it contrary to Community law to subsidise interest rates (cid:1) as
the Greek authorities have been doing for 15 years (cid:1) in regions which are mostly island regions whose
per capita income is one of the lowest in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

Regional aid, i.e. aid designed to develop the less-favoured regions by supporting investments and job
creation in a sustainable context, can take the form of aid for initial investment and/or aid for job creation.
Regional aid is defined as a percentage of eligible cost of initial investment or linked to job creation and is
conditional on the maintenance of the investment in question and of the employment created for a
minimum period of five years. Therefore, unlimited interest rate subsidies, which by definition cannot be
quantified, cannot be considered as investment aid even if they could be linked to eligible cost.

Exceptionally, in regions eligible under the derogation in Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty regional aid
aimed at reducing a firm’s current expenses (operating aid) can be granted under certain conditions, but
the aid must be both limited in time and progressively reduced (see point 4.15 of the guidelines on
national regional aid (1)). Therefore, even if the measures involve operating aid, they should be limited in
time and progressively reduced, which was apparently not the case until now.

The Commission can thus only welcome the Greek authorities’ correct interpretation of the guidelines on
national regional aid.

(1) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998 and OJ C 258, 9.9.2000.

(2004/C 84 E/0922)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0637/04

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject: Inconsistencies in the Community Customs Code (CCC)

In a number of instances, disputes arise between the customs authorities and taxable persons as to whether
or not customs duties are owed. Where, after years and years of litigation, it is shown that the persons
concerned were indeed liable to pay customs duties (pursuant to Article 236 of the CCC), that does not
preclude the possibility that special conditions exist which make the payment of customs duties
unreasonable for the persons concerned (pursuant to Article 239 of the CCC).

Where a debtor submits an application pursuant to Article 239 of the CCC for the repayment of the
customs duties levied, this is usually declared inadmissible on the grounds that the debtor did not submit
the appropriate application within one year from the date on which the amount of the duties was
communicated to him, as laid down in Article 239 of the CCC. The customs authorities argue thus: if the
debtor has been issued with a demand for payment with which he disagrees, proceedings must be initiated
in order to prove that the amount demanded was not legally owed (pursuant to Article 236 of the CCC).
Subsequently, an application must be submitted in accordance with Article 239 of the CCC to ensure that
the deadlines are properly applied. In my opinion, that gives rise to a rather anomalous situation. In the
appeal (and the further course of the procedure), the debtor argues that he is not liable for the customs
duties levied; subsequently, in order not to forfeit his rights, the debtor has to submit a claim (pursuant to
Article 239 of the CCC) in which he actually admits to being liable for the duties but claims that special
conditions exist which should exempt him from having to pay the customs duties levied. Given the
all-embracing scope of Article 239 of the CCC, I cannot believe that that was ever the objective of the
measure.

C 84 E/828

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Is the Commission aware of the repayment/remission procedures laid down in Articles 236 and 239

1.
of the CCC?

Can the Commission indicate why a period of three years is laid down in Article 236 of the CCC and

2.
a period of just one year in Article 239 of the CCC?

Does the one-year period laid down in Article 239 of the CCC have a suspensive effect if the legality

3.
of the customs duties levied has not been irrevocably established?

Can the Commission define the ‘exceptional cases’ to which reference is made in Article 239(2) of the

4.
CCC?

Can a case which has been the subject of court proceedings for those reasons be regarded as an

5.
exceptional case? If not, then what is the function of Article 239 of the CCC?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

1.
The Commission has already started examining how Article 239 of the Community Customs Code
(CCC) can be adapted to align its rules of procedure as far as possible on those of Article 236. However,
it feels that the inconsistencies the Honourable Member sees in the procedures, depending on whether an
application for remission/repayment is made on the basis of Article 236 or on the basis of Article 239, are
only apparent.

It should be noted that it is the Member States’ customs authorities who establish the debt, communicate it
to the debtor (thus affording him the possibility of contesting the existence or amount of the debt) and
examine whether repayment/remission applications were lodged in keeping with the rules.

2.
The periods for submitting the application differ depending on whether it is based on Article 236 or
Article 239 of the Code as the grounds for repayment/remission are themselves different. Taxable persons
invoking Article 236 of the Code consider that a customs debt does not exist so it is only right that they
be allowed the same time (three years) to obtain repayment/remission as that granted to the customs
authorities to notify the amount of the debt (CCC Article 221(2)). On the other hand, in the cases referred
to in Article 239 of the Code, the customs debt does exist but for reasons of fairness it is not appropriate
to collect or repay it. Article 900 of the Code’s implementing provisions (1) lists situations where duties
may be repaid or remitted on the basis of Article 239. A period of one year is normally sufficient for a
trader to realise that a particular situation applies to him so that he can then request repayment or
remission.

3.
The periods referred to in Articles 236 and 239 commence as soon as the amount of the duties has
been communicated to the debtor. An appeal does not have suspensory effect. So, as the legislation stands,
traders contesting the existence of a debt must also submit an application for repayment/remission within
the period laid down in Article 239. In order to comply with the time limits, traders may have to take
steps in parallel which should have a logical sequence but that procedure is not detrimental to them.

As the Honourable Member points out, the one-year period referred to in Article 239 may be
4. and 5.
exceeded only in exceptional cases. In the absence of case law on this point, the Commission considers
that this must be taken to mean the situations referred to in the second paragraph of Article 236(2)
(unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure). At any rate, the fact that the existence of the debt has been
contested, possibly before the courts, does not constitute an exceptional case within the meaning of
Article 239 of the Code.

(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, OJ L 253, 11.10.1993.