Case C-332/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 27 May 2021 — Quadrant Amroq Beverages SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili
Date: 2021-05-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, ethanol, excise duty, flavouring, non-alcoholic beverage, principle of proportionality, tax exemption








C_2021357EN.01000701.xml










6.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 27 May 2021 — Quadrant Amroq Beverages SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili
(Case C-332/21)
(2021/C 357/09)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Quadrant Amroq Beverages SRL

Defendant: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 27(1)(e) of Directive 92/83/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from excise duty covers only ethyl alcohol-type goods used for the production of flavours intended, in turn, for the production of non-alcoholic beverages with an alcohol strength not exceeding 1,2 % volume, or as meaning that that exemption also covers ethyl alcohol-type goods already used for the production of certain favours of that kind which have been or are to be used for the production of non-alcoholic beverages with an alcohol strength not exceeding 1,2 % volume?










2.


Must Article 27(1)(e) of Directive 92/83/EEC, in the context of the objectives and general scheme of that directive, be interpreted as meaning that, once ethyl alcohol-type goods intended to be marketed in another Member State have already been released for consumption in a first Member State, exempt from excise duty as they are used to obtain flavours intended to be used for the production of non-alcoholic beverages with an alcohol strength not exceeding 1,2 % volume, the Member State of destination must treat them in an identical manner within its territory?










3.


Must Article 27(1)(e) and 27(2)(d) of Directive 92/83/EEC, and the [principles] of effectiveness and [proportionality], be interpreted as authorising a Member State to impose procedural requirements, which make the application of the exemption subject to the user having the status of registered consignee and of authorised warehousekeeper, on the seller of excise goods, despite the fact that the Member State in which those goods were acquired does not impose an obligation relating to the status of tax warehousekeeper on the economic operator which markets them?










4.


In the light of Article 27(1)(e) of Directive 92/83/EEC, do the principles of proportionality and effectiveness, in the context of the objectives and general scheme of that directive, preclude the exemption provided for therein from being denied to the taxable person of a Member State of destination who has received ethyl alcohol-type goods and who relied on the fact that those goods were deemed to be exempt on the basis of an official interpretation of those provisions of that directive by the tax authorities of the Member State of origin, given consistently and over a long period of time and transposed into national law and applied in practice, but which subsequently turns out to be incorrect, in the event that, given the circumstances, it is possible to exclude any possibility of fraud or evasion of excise duty?






(1)  Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21, Special edition in Romanian: Chapter 09 Volume 001 P. 152).