Case C-187/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v DSV Road A/S (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Articles 203 and 204 — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 859 — External transit procedure — Incurrence of a customs debt — Removal or not from customs supervision — Failure to perform an obligation — Late submission of the goods at the office of destination — Goods refused by the consignee and returned without having been submitted to the customs office — Goods again placed under the external transit procedure via a fresh declaration — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 168(e) — Deduction of VAT on import by the carrier)
Date: 2015-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, customs debt, customs formalities, customs inspection, customs transit, import (EU), tax relief








C_2015279EN.01001401.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/14






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v DSV Road A/S
(Case C-187/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Articles 203 and 204 - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 859 - External transit procedure - Incurrence of a customs debt - Removal or not from customs supervision - Failure to perform an obligation - Late submission of the goods at the office of destination - Goods refused by the consignee and returned without having been submitted to the customs office - Goods again placed under the external transit procedure via a fresh declaration - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168(e) - Deduction of VAT on import by the carrier))
(2015/C 279/16)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant: DSV Road A/S

Intervening party: Danske Speditører

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 203 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006 must be interpreted as meaning that a customs debt is not incurred on the basis of the sole fact that the goods placed under an External Community transit procedure are, after an unsuccessful delivery attempt, brought back to the free port of departure without having been presented to either the customs office of destination or the customs of the free port if it is established that the same goods were subsequently transported again to their destination under a second correctly discharged External Community transit procedure. However, if it is not possible to establish that the goods covered by the first and second External Community transit procedures are the same goods, a customs debt is incurred under that provision;










2.


Article 204 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, read in conjunction with Article 859 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/2007 of 28 February 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that the late presentation at the customs office of destination under a second External Community transit procedure of goods placed under a first External Community transit procedure constitutes an omission which leads to a customs debt being incurred, unless the conditions laid down in Article 356(3) or the second indent of Article 859 and point 2(c) thereof of that regulation are satisfied, which it is for the referring court to ascertain;










3.


Article 168(e) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which excludes the deduction of VAT on import which the carrier, who is neither the importer nor the owner of the goods in question and has merely carried out the transport and customs formalities as part of its activity as a transporter of freight subject to VAT, is required to pay.






(1)  
            OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.