Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council laying down the Community Customs Code (Modernised Customs Code)
Date: 2007-10-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: computer system, customs formalities, customs inspection, customs regulations, electronic government, exchange of information, simplification of formalities, systems interconnection

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 23.10.2007 
COM(2007) 647 final 

2005/0246 (COD) 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty 

concerning the 

common position of the Council on the adoption of a proposal for a Regulation of the 
European Parliament and the Council laying down the Community Customs Code 
(Modernised Customs Code) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
2005/0246 (COD) 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty 

concerning the 

common position of the Council on the adoption of a proposal for a Regulation of the 
European Parliament and the Council laying down the Community Customs Code 
(Modernised Customs Code) 

1. 

BACKGROUND 

Date of transmission of the proposal to the European Parliament and 
the Council (document COM(2005) 608 final — 2005/0246 COD): 

30 November 2005. 

Date  of  the  opinion  of  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee: 

5 July 2006 

Date of the opinion of the European Parliament, first reading: 

12 December 2006 

Date of the amended proposal, made orally to the Council Working 
Party on Customs Union (Legislation and Policy) 

11 January 2007 

Date of the political agreement in the Council: 

25 June 2007 

Date of adoption of the common position by qualified majority: 

15 October 2007 

2. 

OBJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL 

The  objective  of  the  proposal  is  to  modernise  and  simplify  customs  legislation  and 
administrative  procedures  from  the  point  of  view  of  both  customs  authorities  and 
traders.  The  proposed  streamlining  of  customs  procedures  and  processes  is  also 
intended to adapt customs rules to common standards for interoperable IT systems. 

The proposal must be seen in the context of the Strategy for Growth and Jobs and of 
“Better Regulation”, insofar as it will simplify European regulation so as to reduce 
business  costs  in  Europe  and  to  increase  efficiency,  transparency  and  public 
confidence.  It  was  also  developed  to  fulfil  the  objectives  of  the  e-Government 
initiative, which should allow business to benefit fully from modern technology and 
the resulting facilitation of trade.  

This  proposal  is  of  a  significant  political importance  because  it  will  further  deepen 
the Single Market. It is a significant step towards eliminating remaining barriers to a 
fully  integrated  Customs  territory.  It  is  sensitive  because  it  entails  difficult  choices 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
and sometimes painful reforms (notably in order to make Member States’ electronic 
clearing systems interoperable). 

3. 

COMMENTS ON THE COMMON POSITION 

3.1 

General 

The  common  position,  on  which  political  agreement  was  reached  by  qualified 
majority  on  25  June  2007,  follows  the  general  lines  of  the  Commission’s  amended 
proposal.  The  changes  have  been  made  in  order  to  provide  greater  clarity  and  to 
provide  for  more  flexible  and  suitable  legislation  that  will  meet  the  aim  of 
maintaining  a  proper  balance  between  customs  controls  and  the  facilitation  of 
legitimate trade. 

3.2 

Consideration of the amendments proposed by Parliament at first reading 

In its common position the Council did not agree to all of the amendments proposed 
by the European Parliament, but 36 of the 54 amendments adopted by the Parliament 
are incorporated into this common position, either fully, or in principle, that is with 
some amendment for consistency or clarity, or partial amendment.  

The  table  at  annex  shows  the  correlation  between  the  European  Parliament 
amendments  on  recitals  and  provisions  in  the  Commission’s  proposal  and  the 
corresponding  recitals  and provisions as amended  and renumbered  in the Council’s 
common position. 

Amendments accepted by the Council and the Commission 

Those amendments fully accepted by the Council are 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 21, 32, 
33, 35, 38, 49, 52 and 56; those accepted in principle are 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 18, 31, 36, 
37, 39, 42 to 48, and 50. 

Amendment  26  is  accepted  only  with  regard  to  the  application  of  simplified 
procedures to Community goods in trade with or between territories that are part of 
the customs territory of the Community but are not included in the territorial scope of 
the 6th VAT Directive. 

All  these  amendments  had  previously  been  accepted  by  the  Commission,  except 
Amendments 21 and 31. 

With regard to Amendments 11 and 13, the Council — while fully subscribing to the 
principle  of  aligning  the  proposal  with  the  new  regulatory  procedure  with  scrutiny 
resulting  from  Article  5a  of  the  ‘comitology’  Decision  —  reached  conclusions 
different  from  the  European  Parliament  on  some  empowerment  provisions  and 
completed  the  work  undertaken  by  the  European  Parliament  by  aligning  other 
provisions.  

Amendments accepted neither by the Council nor by the Commission 

The Council did not accept those other amendments with which the Commission also 
disagreed: 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
Amendment  5,  because  the  references  to  the  Decision  amending  the  Comitology 
Decision must be given in the footnote and not in the text; 

Amendment 14, because any system of accreditation for customs agents falls outside 
the scope of the Customs Code; 

Amendment 22, because the change in the wording could jeopardise customs’ ability 
to perform random checks; 

Amendment  23,  because  the  removal  of  the  reference  to  the  opening  hours  of 
customs  offices  would  seriously  undermine  the  proposal’s  efforts  to  frame  the 
charging  of  customs  fees,  and  the  introduction  of  a  reference  to  ‘any  other  act 
required for the purpose of applying customs law’ would allow the perpetuation of a 
practice  prevailing  in  certain  Member  States  of  charging  fees  for  drawing  up 
electronic declarations; 

Amendment 25, because it would make it mandatory for Member States to keep all 
their customs offices operational on a 24/7 basis, which may be desirable but is not 
realistic at present; 

Amendment  26  (in  part),  because  applying  simplified  procedures  to  such  goods 
moving within one single Member State or between some Member States only would 
not ensure uniform application of the VAT provisions within the Single Market. 

Amendment  28,  because  it  amounts  to  using  the  Customs  Code  for  the  purpose  of 
framing negotiating directives for rules of origin in preferential agreements, which is 
the  prerogative  of  the  Council,  on  the  basis  of  Article  133  EC,  as  is  the 
implementation of Article 187 EC; 

Amendment  29,  because  the  article  has  been  amended  by  Council,  to  the  simple 
effect that debtors should be jointly and severally liable for the debt;  

Amendment 30, because, from a legal drafting point of view, inserting examples is 
not appropriate and the basic principle that other forms of guarantee may be accepted 
is all that is necessary in the Code; 

Amendments 40 and 41, because in both cases, the amendments misinterpret current 
and proposed provisions. The COTIF Convention is not an international convention 
that  establishes  a  transit  procedure  or  guarantees  freedom  of  transit  and  cannot 
therefore be taken into account in these articles;  

Amendment  51,  because  it  is  based  on  the  misconception  that  the  exit  summary 
declaration could be processed in the same way as the import summary declaration; 

Amendment 53, because it would go against the principle of subsidiarity. 

Amendments not accepted by the Council but previously accepted by the Commission 

The Council also did not accept other amendments with which the Commission had 
previously agreed; 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Amendment  15,  because  Article  13  of  the  proposal  is  to  be  integrated  with  Article 
11; 

Amendment  24,  because,  due  to  the  new  wording  of  the  provision,  such  an 
amendment would make the list exhaustive [assuming that AM24 did not concern all 
language versions]; 

Amendment 54, because the proposed Article 195 has been deleted from the revised 
text, the Council considering that the Code and its implementing provisions should 
be  clear  enough  to  restrict  the  need  for  explanatory  notes  and  guidelines  to 
exceptional matters and that there is no need to create a ‘third tier’ of regulation or to 
oblige the Commission, in the Code, to do so.  

3.3. 

New provisions introduced by the Council 

The  common  position  includes  certain  further  modifications,  made  by  the  Council, 
that  address  both  the  concerns  reflected  in  the  European  Parliament’s  proposed 
amendments, which took account of the opinions of European business interests, and 
those raised by the Member States’ customs administrations. The points at issue fell 
into  two  categories,  the  key  issues  of  customs  representation,  centralised  clearance 
and  the  ‘single  window’  (for  which  political  support  was  sought,  and  given,  in  the 
Council of Ministers), and several lesser issues, such as national simplifications, the 
application of guarantees and the right to be heard, for which practical solutions have 
been  found  within  reason.  Changes  to  the  procedure  for  the  adoption  of 
implementing provisions have also had considerable implications for the modernised 
Code. 

The main amendments are as follows:1 

Reference  to  a  common  Community  framework  for  penalties  has  been  withdrawn 
from  Recital  14  (previously  Recital  12  of  the  Commission  proposal),  in  line  with 
Article  21  (previously  Article  22),  and  Recital  32  of  the  Commission  proposal  has 
been deleted, in keeping with the removal of any reference to excise and VAT in the 
revised  text  of  the  Code,  these  taxes  being  subject  to  other  legislation.  The  list  of 
repealed Regulations in Recital 39 (previously Recital 38) has also been amended. 

The  European  Parliament’s  support  for  keeping  certain  existing  national 
simplifications  in  the  customs  legislation  is  also  not  fully  taken  on  board  in  the 
common  position.  The  abolition  of  national  empowerments  is  a  cornerstone  of  the 
proposed  reform,  as  these  can  lead  to  non-uniform  application  of  customs  rules  by 
Member  States  and  compromise  the  level  playing  field  for  business  throughout  the 
EU. Within this constraint, however, certain provisions recommended by Parliament 
have been adopted, notably in Article 1(3), to allow for simplified procedures for the 
movement  of  goods  between  the  European  Community  and  its  ‘special  territories’, 
such as the Aaland Islands, Channel Islands, Canary Islands etc. 

In the matter of customs representation, the common position introduces conditions, 
based on "common" criteria, to be fulfilled by customs representatives acting in more 

1 

These comments refer to the Articles as re-numbered in the common position; their previous number in 
the Commission’s proposal is put between brackets. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
than  one  MS  ,  as  this  should  not  be  left  for  a  Member  State  to  decide  unilaterally. 
Although  this  is  not  an  "accreditation  procedure",  it  should  address  the  concerns 
expressed  by  the  EP,  the  customs  agents  and  by  some  Member  States  and  is  in 
accordance  with  the  Treaty  and  the  Services  Directive.  The  common  position  also 
further qualifies the derogations in Article 12 from the need to prove empowerment 
to act as a customs representative. Article 13 of the Commission proposal has been 
deleted, having been incorporated, in principle, into Article 11. 

In  Article  16(4)  (previously  Article  17(4)),  the  time  limit  within  which  a  requested 
decision  must  be  taken,  and  the  applicant  notified,  by  the  customs  authorities  has 
been  increased  by  Council  to  four  months,  more  reasonably  in  line  with  many 
existing national rules. 

Article 35 of the Commission proposal, relating to simplifications, has been deleted, 
with this provision now more specifically defined in the new Article 116, in Article 
1, new paragraph (3), and Article 183(2)(c) (previously Article 194). 

The  requirement  for  Member  States  to  report  to  the  Commission  on  customs 
penalties has been incorporated into Article 21 (previously Article 22), but restricted 
by Council to reporting only the national provision in force, or brought into force, in 
Member States. 

The  provision  in  Article  29  (previously  Article  31)  for  an  extended  time  limit  for 
keeping  documents  and  other  information  which  formerly  applied  only  to  the 
appeals procedure now applies to court procedures as well. 

Political  considerations  persuaded  Council  to  retain  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
82/2001, governing origin rules in the case of Ceuta and Melilla, as autonomous, but 
with  the  agreement  that  the  Regulation  be  updated  to  bring  it  into  line  with  other 
origin rules; Article 39 (previously Article 42) has been amended accordingly. 

The detailed rules on relationship and the rules for the fall back method of valuation 
have  been  transferred  to  the  implementing  provisions  and  Article  46  of  the 
Commission proposal has consequently been deleted. 

Council has re-introduced into Article 51 (previously Article 56) the stipulation that 
where several debtors exist, they shall jointly and severally be liable for the debt. At 
the  same  time,  the  proposed  encouragement  for  customs  authorities  to  attempt  to 
recover  the  debt,  in  the  first  instance,  from  any  deliberate  infringer  has  been  set 
aside. However, the option of suspending the time limit for the payment of duties in 
such a case has been maintained in Article 72(3) (previously Article 77(3)). 

Council has also introduced a safeguard against the possible circumvention of tariff 
measures such as anti-dumping duty into the framework for implementing measures 
in Article 54 (previously Article 59), relating to calculation of duty. 

On guarantees, issues arose in connection with the proposal to extend the liability of 
the  guarantor  to  cover  any  customs  debt  arising  from  undeclared  goods  and  from 
post-clearance controls. By amending Article 56 (previously Article 61), the Council 
has  made  it  clear  that  this  applies  to  guarantees  in  general  but  that  use  of  the 
guarantee to recover post-clearance debts is optional for the Member States and, in 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
any  case,  can  only  apply  if  the  guarantee  had  not  been  released.  The  common 
position  also  better  qualifies  the  need  for  implementing  provisions  relating  to  the 
general  provisions  for  guarantees,  notably  in  relation  to  other  cases  in  which  no 
guarantee is to be required, e.g. for particular modes of traffic/transport, or where a 
guarantee  is  of  limited  validity.  On  guarantors,  Article  61  (previously  Article  66) 
now  also  better  defines  the  institutions  that  may  provide  a  guarantee  without 
approval.  The  proposal  to  restrict  the  use  of  comprehensive  guarantees  with  a 
reduced amount, or a guarantee waiver, to AEOs has also been removed from Article 
62  (previously  Article  67),  while  criteria  identical  to  some  of  those  imposed  on 
AEOs  (proven  solvency,  in  particular)  will  have  to  be  met  for  the  use  of  either 
simplification. 

As  the  new  Code  lays  the  foundation  for  system-based  controls,  Council  broadly 
accepted  the  principle  of  ‘self-assessment’  promoted  by  some  Member  States  in 
Council, according to which customs formalities are simplified as far as possible and, 
where  practical  and  appropriate,  authorised  traders  are  allowed  to  regulate  (or 
‘assess’)  themselves.  The  right  of  customs  authorities  to  accept  amounts  of  duty 
payable  determined  by  the  declarant  is  now  included  in  Article  66(2)  (previously 
Article 71(2)) and, as with centralised clearance, a defining provision is included in a 
new  article,  Article  116,  outlining  and  clarifying  the  basic  concept  of  self-
assessment, which will, however, be restricted to authorised economic operators.  

Article  84  of  the  Commission  proposal  has  been  deleted,  the  definitions  of 
repayment and remission being moved to Article 4 and the other provisions included 
in Article 79 (previously Article 85).  

In Article 86 (previously Article 92), Council has sought to clarify the conditions of 
extinguishment  of  a  customs  debt  where  the  goods  are  seized  and  confiscated. 
Furthermore, while acknowledging the role of debtors in supporting the fight against 
fraud, the Council has withdrawn the proposal for a provision specifically allowing 
the  extinguishment  of  a  customs  debt  incurred  during  a  controlled  delivery 
performed to identify criminals, as this is not the practice in every Member State. 

In Chapter 2 of Title V — Placing goods under a customs procedure, the common 
position now includes a new, dedicated Article 106 outlining and clarifying the basic 
concept of centralised clearance, which will no longer be restricted to those AEOs, 
although applicants will have to meet AEO criteria.  

The structure of this Chapter has also been changed to follow a more logical order; 
the rules for simplified and supplementary declarations are now together with those 
for standard declarations and common provisions governing them all. (Articles 125 
and  128  of  the  Commission  proposal  have  been  re-numbered  109  and  110,  and 
Articles 114 to 117 re-numbered 111 to 114). 

Council has withdrawn the restriction on the use of simplified declarations to AEOs 
in Article 109 (previously Article 125), which renders the provision for ‘occasional’ 
simplified declarations in Article 127 of the Commission proposal superfluous, and 
has also reintroduced (but in Article 119 (previously Article 115)) the restriction on 
the right to waive presentation of the goods to simplified declaration by entry in the 
records alone. Articles 126 and 127 of the Commission proposal have therefore been 
deleted. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
In  Article  111  (previously  Article  114),  the  common  position  also  restores  the 
reference  in  the  Code  to  particular  persons  who  need  not  be  established  in  the 
customs territory of the Community in order to lodge a declaration. 

A  new  Chapter  3  —  Verification  and  release  of  goods  —  in  Title  V  logically 
separates  out  the  customs  clearance  aspects  of  goods  declared  for  a  procedure. 
(Articles  118  to  124  of  the  Commission  proposal  are  re-numbered  117  to  121,  123 
and  124).  A  new  article,  Article  122,  provides  for  implementing  measures.  [The 
former  Chapter  3  –  Simplifications,  relating  to  customs  declarations  in  the 
Commission  proposal,  is  now  Chapter  1,  Section 3  of this Title; Article 129 of the 
Commission proposal has been deleted.] 

Article 138 (previously Article 146) has also been amended in the common position, 
as the ending of a transit procedure is essentially a different event from its discharge, 
and  the  rules  for  ending  the  procedure  are  properly  restored  to  Article  146 
(previously Article 155). The introductory  Article 154 of the Commission  proposal 
has been deleted, as unnecessary. 

Under the proposals for the modernised Code, temporary storage becomes a customs 
procedure and, as with goods in customs warehouses and free zones, no time limit is 
to be set for placing goods in temporary storage under another customs procedure, so 
that  automatic  incurrence  of  a  customs  debt  after  a  specific  deadline  is  avoided. 
Article150  (previously  Article  159)  now  recognises  that  there  are  circumstances 
where  time  limits  for  temporary  storage  may  be  set,  notably  where  the  storage 
facility is operated by the customs authority itself and no commercial arrangements 
exist,  and  in  exceptional  circumstances.  The  same  Article  now  provides  for  the 
adoption of implementing provisions to govern these exceptional circumstances.  

Article  166  of  the  Commission  proposal,  relating  to  procedures  in  a  free  zone,  has 
been deleted and the provision integrated into Article 159 (previously Article 169).  

In the  common position,  provisions are now made under exit formalities in Article 
177  (previously  Article  187)  for  the  presentation  of  goods  leaving  the  customs 
territory of the Community to customs at the point of departure, i.e. the office of exit. 
In the current Code, such presentation is explicit in the rules of certain procedures, 
e.g.  export,  transit,  but  not  in  all  cases,  and  this  is  now  necessary  for  security  and 
safety controls. 

The  application  of  the  Council  ‘comitology’  Decision  2006/512/EC2,  laying  down 
revised  procedures  for  the  exercise  of  implementing  powers  conferred  on  the 
Commission, is now reflected throughout the Code, with every article that empowers 
the  Commission  to  adopt  implementing  measures  having  been  amended  to  specify 
which procedure applies in each case. In many cases a more detailed framework for 
the committee procedure has been added to these provisions.  

2 

OJ 2006 No L 200, p.11 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.4. 

Key issues not addressed by amendments/statements  

‘Centralised  clearance’  will  have  an  impact  on  the  amounts  collected  by  each 
Member  State  and  hence  on  the  share  (25%)  of  customs  duties  they  receive  in  the 
form of collection costs, on VAT and on statistical arrangements. In order that such 
outside  issues  should  not  delay  the  adoption  of  the  modernised  Code  a  Council 
statement  has  been  agreed,  advocating  that  a  mechanism  be  devised  to  readjust  the 
flow of collection costs. This mechanism should be developed within the appropriate 
forums and be granted a status ensuring a legally binding effect on Member States, to 
be in force by the time the modernised Code enters into force and to be operational 
by the time the Code is applicable. 

The  Council  statement  also  notes  that  the  centralised  clearance  system  may  also 
require adjustments in connection with VAT, statistics, and national prohibitions and 
restrictions, and that these issues should be clarified in the appropriate forums before 
the  provisions  on  centralised clearance in the Modernised Customs Code enter into 
force.  

In  another  statement,  the  Council  and  the  Commission  agree  to  evaluate  the 
functioning of the centralised clearance system three years after the entry into force 
of the modernised Code. 

4. 

CONCLUSION 

The  Commission  fully  supports  the  common  position,  which  incorporates  and 
improves upon a number of the amendments made by the European Parliament. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Annex 1 

Correlation Table 

between the 54 European Parliament's amendments, the corresponding 
recitals/provisions in the Commission's proposal (COM(2005)0608) and the 
recitals/provisions as re-numbered in the Council's common position 

(European Parliament's amendments rejected either by the Commission or by the Council or 
by both are shown in grey shading) 

No EP Amendment 

No Recital/Article 
(Commission's proposal) 

No Recital/Article 
(Council's common position) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

1 

new Recital 6a 

Recital 8 

Recital 9 

Recital 36 

Recital 38 

2 

4 (4) 

4 (new 4a) 

4 (new 8a) 

1 

Recital 8 

Recital 10 

Recital 11 

Recital 35 

Recital 39 

2 

4 (5) 

4 (6) 

4 (11) 

5 (1) sub-par. 2, 11 (2), 59 (c), 61, 68, 
77, 81, 83, 93 (3)(a), 93 (3)(c), 95, 
107, 115, 116, 117, 128, 137, 138, 
141, 143 (2), 144 (2), 145, 150, 172, 
174, 186, 191, 192, 193  

5 (1) sub-par. 2, 11 (3) (a), 59 (c), 61 (9), 
68 (3), 77 (3), 81, 83 (1) sub-par. 2, 83 
(5), 95 (2) (a), (b) and (c), 107 (2) (a) and 
(b), 117 (1) sub-par. 3, 120 (3), 121 (2), 
141, 143 (2), 145 (2), 150 (1) sub-par. 4, 
150 (2) sub-par 2, 150 (3) sub-par 2, 191 
sub-par. 3, 192 (2) 

11 (Comitology) 

12 

9 (2) 

9 (2) (phrase deleted) 

10 (3), 16, 17, 21, 27, 35, 41, 42 (3), 
42 (4), 59 (b), 60, 63, 64, 67, 93 (3)(b), 
99, 109, 113 (1), 125, 143 (1), 143 (3), 
152, 153, 157, 174, 186, 194 (a), 194 
(c) 

1 (3) sub-par 2 &3, 10 (2), 16, 17 (5), 21 
(7) c), 27 (3), 41, 42 (3) & (4), 59 b), 60 
(2) sub-par 2), 63 sub-par 2, 64 (1) sub-
par 2, 67 (3), 93 (3), 99 (2), 107 (2) b), 
109, 113 (1) sub-par 2, 114 (2)&(3), 123, 
143 (1) sub-par 4, & (3) sub-par 2, 152 
(2), 153 (3) sub-par 2, 157 (2) sub-par 2, 
174 sub-par 1, 186 (1), 194 (1)&(2) 

11 (new 2a and 2b)  

11 

13 

Article deleted 

13 (Comitology) 

14 

15 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
16 

17 

18 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34/35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

EN 

14 (2) 

14 (3) 

15 (d) &(e) 

16 (e) 

22 (1) 

27 (2), sub-par 1 

32 (1) 

32 (2) 

32 (2) (a) 

13 (2) 

13 (3)(a) 

14 (d)&(e) 

15 (e) 

21 (1) 

25 (2), sub-par 1 

30 (1), sub-par 1 

30 (1), sub-par. 2 

30 (1), sub-par 2 (a) 

35 (new 2a and 2b) 

1 (3) [+ 116, 183 (2) (c)] 

38 (not in EN) 

35 (not in EN) 

42 (new 5a) 

56 (new 1a) 

64 (1) (c) 

67 (2) 

94 (new 4a) 

101 (4) (c) 

114 (1) 

115 (2) 

125 

141 

152 (1) (b) 

153 (2) (new f a) 

152 (3) (new f a) 

155 (1) (c) 

157 (2) (b) 

158 (2) 

160 (3) 

172 (1), sub-par 2 

11 

39 

51 (paragraph deleted) 

59 (1) (c) 

62 (2) 

88 (4) 

95 (4) 

112 (1) 

111 (2) 

109 (1) 

Article deleted 

144 (1) (b) 

145(2) 

144 (3) 

146 (1) (c) 

148 (1) (b) 

149 (2) (phrase deleted) 

151 (3) 

162 (1) (a) 

   EN 

 
47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

178 (1) (b) 

168 (1) (b) 

187 (2), sub-par 2 

190 (1) 

190 (2), sub-par 2 (new 2a) 

190 (new 3a) 

193 

194 (a) 

195 (new 1a) 

196 (new 2a) 

198 

177 (1) 

180 (1) 

180 (3) 

180 

Article deleted 

183 (1) 

Article deleted 

184 (4) 

186 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
Annex 2 

JOINT STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ON EVALUATION 
OF THE FUNCTIONING OF THE CENTRALISED CLEARANCE SYSTEM 

The  Council  and  the  Commission  agree  that  three  years  after  the  entry  into  force  of  the 
Modernized Customs Code the Commission should evaluate the functioning of the centralised 
clearance system. 

On  the  basis  of  contributions  from  Member  State,  the  Commission  services  will  submit  a 
report to the Council and the European Parliament and the Commission will, if appropriate, 
make any necessary proposal for legislative changes. 

EN 

13 

   EN