Case C-154/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Administratīvo lietu departaments — Latvia) — ‘Latvijas Dzelzceļš’ VAS v Valsts ienemumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 94(1) and Article 96 — External Community transit procedure — Liability of the principal — Articles 203, 204 and Article 206(1) — Incurrence of a customs debt — Unlawful removal from customs supervision — Non-fulfilment of one of the obligations flowing from the use of a customs procedure — Total destruction or irretrievable loss of the goods as a result of the actual nature of the goods or unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure — Article 213 — Payment of the customs debt under joint and several liability — Directive 2006/112/EC — Value added tax (VAT) — Article 2(1), Articles 70 and 71 — Chargeable event and chargeability of the tax — Articles 201, 202 and 205 — Persons liable for payment of the tax — Finding by the customs office at the destination of a freight deficit — Lower unloading device of a wagon-tank incorrectly closed or damaged)
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Union transit, VAT, basis of tax assessment, carrier, commercial vehicle, customs debt, free movement of goods, liability, taxpayer, transport safety








C_2017239EN.01001501.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/15





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Administratīvo lietu departaments — Latvia) — ‘Latvijas Dzelzceļš’ VAS v Valsts ienemumu dienests
(Case C-154/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 94(1) and Article 96 - External Community transit procedure - Liability of the principal - Articles 203, 204 and Article 206(1) - Incurrence of a customs debt - Unlawful removal from customs supervision - Non-fulfilment of one of the obligations flowing from the use of a customs procedure - Total destruction or irretrievable loss of the goods as a result of the actual nature of the goods or unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure - Article 213 - Payment of the customs debt under joint and several liability - Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax (VAT) - Article 2(1), Articles 70 and 71 - Chargeable event and chargeability of the tax - Articles 201, 202 and 205 - Persons liable for payment of the tax - Finding by the customs office at the destination of a freight deficit - Lower unloading device of a wagon-tank incorrectly closed or damaged))
(2017/C 239/19)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Latvijas Dzelzceļš’ VAS

Defendant: Valsts ienemumu dienests

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply where the total volume of the goods placed under the external Community transit procedure has not been presented to the customs office of destination provided for in that procedure, owing to the total destruction or irretrievable loss of some of the goods, which is proven to a satisfactory standard.










2.


Article 204(1)(a) of Regulation No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005 must be interpreted as meaning that where the total volume of goods placed under the external Community transit procedure has not been produced at the customs office of destination laid down in that procedure owing to the total destruction or irretrievable loss of some of the goods, proven to a satisfactory standard, that situation, which constitutes the non-fulfilment of one of the obligations under that procedure, namely to produce goods intact at the customs office of destination, gives rise, in principle, to a customs debt on importation for the part of the goods which was not produced at that customs office. It is for the national court to determine whether a circumstance such as damage to an unloading device meets, in the present case, the criteria of ‘force majeure’ or an ‘unforeseeable circumstance’, within the meaning of Article 206(1) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, namely, whether it is an abnormal circumstance for a trader in the business of the transportation of liquid substances and extraneous to that trader, and whether the consequences could not have been avoided even if all due care had been exercised. In the context of that determination, that court must, in particular, take into account compliance, by operators such as the principal and the carrier, with the rules and obligations in force regarding the technical condition of tanks and the safety of transportation of liquid substances such as a solvent.










3.


Article 2(1)(d) and Articles 70 and 71 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that VAT is not due on the totally destroyed or irretrievably lost part of goods placed under the external Community transit procedure.










4.


Article 96(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 204(1)(a) and (3) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, must be interpreted as meaning that the principal is liable for the payment of the customs debt arising in relation to goods placed under the external Community transit procedure, even if the carrier did not fulfil the obligations to which he was subject under Article 96(2) of that regulation, in particular the requirement to produce those goods intact at the customs office of destination within the prescribed period.










5.


Article 96(1)(a) and (2), Article 204(1)(a) and (3) and Article 213 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authority of a Member State is not obliged to declare the joint and several liability of the carrier who, together with the principal, must be regarded as liable for payment of the customs debt.






(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016