Commission Staff Working Document on the interim evaluation of the implementation of the Union Customs Code
Date: 2022-06-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: application of EU law, common tariff policy, customs cooperation, customs harmonisation, customs regulations, customs union, information system

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 27.6.2022  SWD(2022) 158 final/2  This document corrects SWD(2022) 158 final of 31.05.2022. Addition of the SEC reference - SEC(2022) 282 final - to the Opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. The text shall read as follows. COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  INTERIM EVALUATION of the implementation of the Union Customs Code {SEC(2022) 282 final} - {SWD(2022) 159 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 4 

Purpose, scope and methodology of the evaluation ........................................ 4 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? . 8 

2.1  Description of the intervention and its objectives ........................................... 8 

2.2   Points of comparison ..................................................................................... 10 

3.  HOW  HAS  THE  SITUATION  EVOLVED  OVER  THE  EVALUATION 
PERIOD? ....................................................................................................... 12 

3.1.  Current state of play ...................................................................................... 12 

3.2.  State of implementation of the UCC package (legal and IT aspects)............ 16 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ................................. 21 

4.1.  PRELIMINARY REMARKS ....................................................................... 21 

4.2.  TO  WHAT  EXTENT  WAS  THE  INTERVENTION  SUCCESSFUL  AND 
WHY? 
[RELATED  CRITERIA  TO  ASSESS:  EFFECTIVENESS, 
EFFICIENCY, COHERENCE] ..................................................................... 23 

4.2.1 Effectiveness and Efficiency ........................................................................ 24 

4.2.2 Coherence ..................................................................................................... 39 

4.3.  HOW  DID  THE  EU  INTERVENTION  MAKE  A  DIFFERENCE? 
[RELATED CRITERION TO ASSESS: EU ADDED VALUE] ...................... 43 

4.4.  IS THE UCC STILL RELEVANT? .............................................................. 47 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS?........................................................... 50 

ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ................................................... 55 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ........... 58 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS 
ON  ANSWERS  TO  THE  EVALUATION  QUESTIONS 
(BY 
CRITERION) ................................................................................................ 73 

ANNEX  IV.  OVERVIEW  OF  BENEFITS  AND  COSTS  [AND,  WHERE 
RELEVANT,  TABLE  ON  SIMPLIFICATION  AND  BURDEN 
REDUCTION] ............................................................................................... 80 

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ..... 92 

ANNEX  VI.  THE  UNION  CUSTOMS  CODE  LEGAL  ACTS,  IT  SYSTEMS 
AND PLANNING AND INTERVENTION LOGIC ................................. 104 

ANNEX VII. UCC STATE OF IMPLEMENTATION ...................................... 113 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

AEO 

AEO-C 

AEO-F 

AEO-S 

AES 

BOI 

BTI 

CBA 

CCC 

CCI 

CCIP 

CCT 

CD 

CDMS 

CDS 

CEA 

CEG 

CEG GEN 

CUP 

DG AGRI 

DG GROW 

DG TAXUD 

DG TRADE 

DSB 

EBTI 

EC 

ECA 

Authorised Economic Operator 

Authorised Economic Operator (Customs simplifications) 

Authorised Economic Operator (Full authorisation) 

Authorised Economic Operator (Security and safety) 

Automated Export System 

Binding Origin Information 

Binding Tariff Information 

Cost-benefit analysis 

Community Customs Code 

Centralised Clearance for Import (electronic system) 

Community Customs Code Implementing Provisions 

Common Customs Tariff 

Customs Declaration 

Customs Decisions Management System 

Customs Decisions System 

Cost-effectiveness analysis 

Customs Expert Group 

Customs Expert Group General Customs Legislation Section 

Customs Union Performance 

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, 
Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union 

Directorate-General for Trade 

Dispute Settlement Body  

European Binding Tariff Information 

European Commission 

European Court of Auditors 

2 

 
EIDR 

ENS 

EO 

EORI 

EP 

EQ 

EU 

Entry in the Declarant’s Records 

Entry Summary Declaration 

Economic operator  

Economic Operators Registration and Identification 

European Parliament 

Evaluation question 

European Union 

EUROSTAT 

European Statistical Office 

F4F 

FTE 

GATT 

GSP 

GUM 

HDR 

IA 

ICS 

INF 

IT 

MASP-C 

MCC 

MS 

MSME 

NA 

NCTS 

NIS 

OLAF 

PN 

PoUS 

REX 

SASP 

Fit for Future Platform 

Full-time equivalent 

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade  

Generalised Scheme of Preferences 

Guarantee Management (electronic system) 

Harmonised data requirements  

Impact Assessment 

Import Control System 

Standardised Exchange of Information for Special Procedures 

Information technology 

Multi-Annual Strategic Plan for Electronic Customs 

Modernised Customs Code 

Member State 

Micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises 

Notification of Arrival 

New Computerised Transit System 

National Import Systems 

European Anti-Fraud Office 

Presentation Notification 

Proof of Union Status 

Registered Exporter System 

Single Authorisation for Simplified Procedures 

3 

 
SCM 

SP 

SURV3 

TARIC 

TCG 

TFEU 

TS 

TSD 

UCC 

UCC-DA 

UCC-IA 

UCC-TDA 

UK 

UUM&DS 

VAT 

WCO 

WTO 

Standard Cost Model 

Special Procedures 

Surveillance 3 

Integrated Tariff of the European Union database 

Trade Contact Group 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

Temporary Storage 

Temporary Storage Declaration 

Union Customs Code 

Union Customs Code Delegated Act 

Union Customs Code Implementing Act 

Union Customs Code Transitional Delegated Act 

United Kingdom 

Uniform User Management and Digital Signature 

Value-added tax 

World Customs Organization 

World Trade Organization 

4 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose, scope and methodology of the evaluation 

The purpose of this evaluation is to provide an interim assessment of the implementation 
of the Union Customs Code (UCC)1 at both EU and Member States’ levels. Since its entry 
into force in 2016, the UCC is the main legal and IT framework for customs processes in 
the EU customs territory.  The UCC aims: 

 

 

 

to protect the financial interests of the Union and the Member States  

to protect the safety and security of EU citizens and  

to  maintain  a  proper  balance  between  customs  controls  and  facilitation  of 
legitimate trade. 

To accomplish these goals, the UCC aims, in particular, to achieve more simplicity and 
uniformity in the application of customs rules in order to enhance the competitiveness of 
European businesses and to provide a fully electronic environment for the completion of 
customs formalities by customs authorities and economic operators, via the deployment of 
17 electronic systems (see Annex VI). 

The  Commission  carried  out  this  evaluation  following  a  request  of  the  European 
Parliament  to  take  stock  of  the  state  of  play  of  the  implementation  of  the  customs 
legislation and the delivery of electronic systems set out in the UCC and to ensure that the 
customs regulatory framework formed by the UCC is effective, proportionate and fit for 
purpose both for Member States and for trade operators.2 In an initial report published on 
22 January 20183, the Commission  found that the UCC had not encountered any major 
legislative problems during its first eighteen months of implementation, despite the major 
changes introduced. However, the Commission also acknowledged that the impact of the 
UCC would have to be assessed in a more comprehensive way.  

The UCC package is composed of the basic Regulation (the UCC) and several delegated 
and  implementing  acts  (see  Annex  VI).  In  line  with  the  request  from  the  European 
Parliament, the evaluation focuses on the implementation of the UCC package, i.e. the 
different  activities  and  mechanisms  progressing  from  its  existence  as  a  legal  text  to  its 
correct  interpretation,  implementation,  application and enforcement by the Commission 
and the Member States. More details about this approach are provided in section 2.1 and 
in the intervention logic in Annex VI. 

1  Regulation  (EU)  No  952/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  laying  down  the  Union 

Customs Code (OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1–101).  

2 European Parliament resolution of 19 January 2017 on tackling the challenges of the Union Customs Code 

implementation (2016/3024(RSP)) (OJ C 242, 10.7.2018, p. 41–43). See point 8. 

3 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on the implementation of the 
Union Customs Code and on the exercise of the power to adopt delegated acts pursuant to Article 284 
thereunder, COM(2018) 39 final. 

5 

 
                                                           
The evaluation period goes from 1 May 2016 (the date from which the UCC’s substantial 
provisions started being applied) to end of December 2020 (original date by which all the 
UCC IT systems should have been deployed). 

The geographical scope of the evaluation includes all Member States. While the United 
Kingdom was a Member State in the period considered, it is not included in the analysis 
due to the impossibility of collecting relevant data from its customs authority.   

From a methodological point of view4, the main input for the evaluation comes from an 
external study carried out by Economisti Associati from August 2020 to November 20215 
In addition, ad-hoc consultations were also carried out at meetings of the Trade Contact 
Group (TCG) and internally among Commission services. Finally, the opinion of the Fit 
for  Future  Platform  (F4F)  has  also  been  taken  into  account  in  the  analysis.  It  includes 
suggestions  on  simplifying  and  reducing  potential  unnecessary  costs  in  the  Code.6  The 
methodology used in the supporting study was composed of two phases: 

  A  detailed  overview  of  the  UCC’s  practical  implementation  in  terms  of  its  rules, 
procedures and IT systems, mainly based on desk research and on the replies to a 
targeted questionnaires by the 27 customs authorities and by 21 economic operators 
representing EU level business associations and companies in the field of logistics, sea, 
air  and  rail  transport,  express  operators,  postal  operators,  shipping,  airports  and 
seaports operators between November 2020 and February 2021.7 

  Given  the  impossibility  of    analysing  every  change  introduced  by  the  UCC  and 
considering that not all changes were impactful, a sample of the most significant UCC 
provisions and changes (eight “key issues”) was used for an in-depth analysis in the 
evaluation  phase  through  the  prism  of  the  Better  Regulation  criteria  (effectiveness, 
efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value). The choice of the eight topics 
was based on the outcome of the implementation review phase described above and an 
analysis by the Commission of the  most impactful topics arising. The sample does not 
cover  the  standard  rules  on  the  main  customs  processes  (import,  export,  transit) 
because the UCC’s predecessor, the Community Customs Code, already codified those 
core  rules.  As  the  UCC  digitalised  these  procedures  and  the  related  formalities,  the 
issues selected for the evaluation were intended to cover the areas in which the UCC 
introduced  substantial  changes,  such  as  rules  on  customs  decisions,  authorised 
economic  operator,  temporary  storage,  guarantees,  simplifications  to  the  customs 

4   See Annex II on methodology and annex V on synopsis report. 
5    Study  to  support  the  interim  evaluation  of  the  implementation  of  the  Union  Customs  Code,  by 

Economisti Associati and others (2021). [Add link (once published)] 

6   Reference  2021/SBGR3/13.  The  Fit  for  Future  Platform  (F4F)  is  a  high-level  expert  group  bringing 
together Member States, the Committee of the Regions, the European Economic and Social Committee 
and stakeholders. It also includes a collaboration with the SME Envoy Network represented by the EU 
SME Envoy. It was established through Decision (2020)297716 that determines its mandate, role and 
the way it will work. 

7   The questionnaire was sent primarily to all customs authorities (response rate 100%). It was also sent to 
the 55 members of the Trade Contact Group (TCG) for additional feedback. Of the 55 TCG members, 
21  responded:  16  EU-level  business  federations  and  5  individual  companies  (sectors  covered: 
manufacturing, retailing, shipping sector, port/airport operators, customs agents/brokers).  

6 

 
                                                           
formalities and clearance processes and harmonised data requirements. In addition, the 
sample also includes the IT systems that were already deployed by 2020 (central IT 
systems) and an area in which the European Court of Auditors had identified problems 
(risk management).8 Each of the eight topics was carefully selected and considered as 
representative of a broader group of related aspects rather than a single legal provision 
or IT system. More details are in section 4 and annex II.  

Data and evidence for this second phase of the study include: i) the above mentioned 
implementation  questionnaires;  ii)  112  interviews  with  Commission  officials  (13), 
customs  officials  (61)  and  national  economic  operators  (38  among  federations  and 
individual companies9) in a sample of 10 Member States; iii) a public consultation with 
126 respondents, mainly economic operators (112), nearly  half of which  were large 
companies  (250  or  more  employees);  iv)  and  an  IT  costs  assessment  for  five  UCC 
systems. Given the practical difficulty with covering all Member States for the broad 
scope of the evaluation, the sample of Member States (Germany, Netherlands, France, 
Italy, Poland, Ireland, Sweden, Romania, Estonia, Luxembourg) aimed at ensuring a 
proper balance in terms of geographical location, population size, share of EU GDP; 
trade volumes and specific interest for customs purposes (i.e. exposure to e-commerce 
flows, external borders, level of IT development). In the public consultation, wherever 
possible, findings were cross-checked, either using input from different stakeholders 
or data collection methods, or secondary sources. 

The assessment provided in this evaluation is intended to be as comprehensive as possible 
but is limited by certain specific factors, for which mitigation actions have been taken, as 
follows: 

  The very large scope of the UCC package in terms of rules and processes covered, 

and for that reason the choice to focus on eight key issues; 

  Lack  of  systematic  quantitative  data  for  the  cost-benefit  analysis  (CBA)  and 
subsequently the focus on qualitative assessment based on information provided in the 
questionnaires and in the interviews with customs officials and economic operators at 
EU  and  national  level.  Nevertheless,  a  quantitative  analysis  was  performed  in  the 
assessment  of  efficiency  and  some  quantified  figures  serve  to  illustrate  the  scale  of 
benefits and costs in specific cases.  The reasons for this limitation mainly relates to: 

  difficulties  for  the  stakeholders  consulted  with  distinguishing  the  costs  of 
adaptation  to  the  new  UCC  rules  from  the  costs  of  running  the  usual  customs 
operations, as the need to adapt to new rules and IT systems has become a constant 
element in the customs environment; 

8 See  European Court of Auditors Special Report 19/2017 “Import procedures: shortcomings in the legal 
framework  and  an  ineffective  implementation  impact  the  financial  interests  of  the  EU”,  and  Special 
Report  04/2021: Customs controls: insufficient harmonisation hampers EU financial interests. 

9 The national economic operators interviewed operate in the following sectors: customs services 9, logistics 
7,  air  transport  4,  rail  transport  3,  sea  transport  2,  chemicals  3,  automotive  2,  manufacturing  industry  8. 
Around 6 interviews with economic operators were held in each of the ten selected Member States, but two; 
the smaller Member States were proportionally represented in this exercise. 

7 

 
                                                           
 

the  conceptual  challenge  of  quantifying  in  monetary  terms  the  benefits  that  the 
new  rules  and  IT  system  are  progressively  bringing,  namely  certain  types  of 
benefits such as increased clarity of rules; 

 

the difficulties for the national administrations in accessing and providing detailed 
data on costs, for confidentiality reasons, capacity constraints or internal practices.  

  The 

lack  of  mandatory  monitoring  arrangements 

its 
implementation, except the reporting obligation on the progress made by Member 
States on the development of IT systems; 

the  UCC  for 

in 

  The  delays  in  the  IT  implementation  (notably  in  the  upgrade  of  the  National 
Imports and the deployment of the national component of the Automated Exports 
systems by the Member States)) are not a main cause but limit the possibilities for 
providing  quantitative  data  as  such  (e.g.  the  system  Surveillance3  cannot  work 
without data provided by the national systems). 

  Reliance on stakeholder feedback: given the relative scarcity of relevant secondary 
data and the importance of stakeholder experiences for the implementation of the UCC, 
direct input from the widest possible spectrum of stakeholders was the main evidence 
source for the external study that provided the main input for this evaluation, via the 
consultation activities explained above. It is crucial to note that judgment criteria and 
indicators used in the evaluation include not only opinions of the stakeholders but also 
take into account the fact that those stakeholders are in possession of the data necessary 
for the analysis of the UCC implementation (especially customs authorities, who are 
the ones responsible for the implementation on the ground). Feedback expressed in the 
questionnaires, interviews and in the public consultation were cross-checked, wherever 
possible, either using input from different stakeholders or data collection methods, or 
secondary sources, including from the Customs Union Performance tool. Overall, this 
should ensure sufficient confidence in the findings of the evaluation, although these 
are not based on statistically representative samples or objectively ‘hard’ data. 

  Partial  implementation  of  the  UCC  package,  as  the  legal  deadlines  for  the 
completion of certain IT projects will expire after the temporal scope of the evaluation. 
Instead, the evaluation covers five IT systems that were deployed by the end of 2020, 
in line with the temporal scope of the evaluation itself. 

  New challenges: Some of the findings of this evaluation refer to the absence in the 
UCC package of adequate solutions to the issues encountered by customs authorities 
when  faced  with  matters  such  as  e-commerce.  The  external  study  addressed  this 
problem  in  the  form  of  topical  case-studies,  offering  a  horizontal  analysis  of  inter-
related elements which emerged during the “main” line of research (see Annex 4 of the 
study).  

8 

 
 
2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1   Description of the intervention and its objectives 

The UCC entered into force on 30 October 2013 although most of its substantive provisions 
took  effect  from  1  May  2016.  The  UCC  provides  for  a  comprehensive  legal  and  IT 
framework10 governing nearly  all aspects  of how  EU customs operate,  and covering  all 
customs domains, procedures, declarations, decisions, systems, etc. 

The UCC is the main legal and IT framework for customs processes in the EU Customs 
Union. The EU Customs Union is more than 50 years old. The Customs Union means that 
EU Member States apply a common system of customs duties to imports of goods from 
outside the EU customs territory. There are no customs duties and no customs controls at 
the borders between the EU Member States. Member States’ customs authorities supervise 
all goods entering or leaving the EU customs territory, regardless of their mode of entry or 
exit.  

The UCC repealed the 1992 Community Customs Code (“CCC”)11. The CCC for the first 
time consolidated the EU’s main customs regulations in one single text and converted the 
customs union from a space in which the same tariffs applied into an area of full regulatory 
integration. The CCC already regulated in detail the main customs procedures (release for 
free  circulation,  transit,  customs  warehousing,  processing,  temporary  admission  and 
exportation), the factors used to calculate customs duties (origin and value of the goods) 
and the customs debt.  

Although a major achievement and a facilitation for businesses at that time, the procedures 
and practices under the CCC relied on the use of paper documentation. This was not suited  
to  a  modern,  electronic  business  environment  and  to  the  increasing  responsibilities  of 
customs  authorities  at  the  border  of  the  Union,  in  matters  going  beyond  the  traditional 
collection  of  duties  (such  as  addressing  security  and  safety  challenges,  illegal  cash 
movements  and  counterfeit  goods).12  A  first  attempt  to  modernise  customs  took  place 
through the adoption of a Decision on electronic customs13 in late 2008. A second attempt 
was the adoption of the Modernised Customs Code (“MCC”)14. Due to the new rules and 
procedures  introduced  by  the  Lisbon  Treaty  the  Commission  was  obliged  to  recast  the 
MCC before its planned application date, which led to the adoption of the UCC and its 
accompanying acts.  

The UCC effectively applies from May 2016. The UCC codifies for the first time in the 
history of the Customs Union the mission of the customs authorities, thereby setting the 

10 See Annex VI for the composition and content of the UCC package. 
11 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code 

(OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.) 

12 About 150 pieces of non-customs legislation applicable at the EU borders entered into force since 2016, 
while another 24 legal acts are currently under revision. Examples of such legislation concern the rules 
for the import of cultural goods the new regulation on market surveillance. 

13 Decision No 70/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on a paperless 

environment for customs and trade (OJ L 23, 26.1.2008, p.21). 

14 Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 laying 
down the Community Customs Code (Modernised Customs Code) (OJ L 145, 4.6.2008, p. 1–64). 

9 

 
                                                           
general  objectives  of  the  Customs  Union  as  such,  namely:  (1)  to  protect  the  financial 
interests of the Union and the Member States; (2) to protect the safety and security of EU 
citizens and (3) to maintain a proper balance between customs controls and facilitation of 
legitimate trade. 

As the CCC already codified the main customs procedures, the UCC was never meant to 
introduce major substantial changes in those procedures but rather to consolidate them and 
adapt them to new realities, notably the use of electronic means. Accordingly, the specific 
objectives  of  the  UCC  are  (1)  to  streamline  and  simplify  the  existing  customs  rules, 
procedures and processes; (2) full automation of all customs procedures and processes; and 
(3) to strengthen legal certainty, uniformity and predictability of customs rules.  

The intervention logic of the UCC implementation is represented in annex VI.  

The main innovations of the modern approach adopted in the UCC package included: 

1.  Principle that all customs and trade transactions are to be handled electronically; 

2.  No  limitations  on  the  right  of  customs  representatives  to  provide  services  in  a 
Member State other than his place of establishment, to ensure a level playing field; 

3.  Harmonised  and  standardised  application  of  customs  controls  by  the  Member 

States, to ensure an equivalent level of customs control throughout the Union; 

4.  Harmonised and predictable common rules on customs decisions  issued by the 
Member States, including on the issuing of customs authorisations and on binding 
customs decisions on tariffs and on origin; 

5.  Stronger  rules  and  criteria  for  granting  the  status  of  Authorised  Economic 
Operator (AEO) to compliant and trustworthy economic operators who can enjoy 
the possibility of using  customs simplifications, benefit from facilitations relating to 
security and safety and more favourable treatment in respect of customs controls; 

6.  Compulsory guarantees for all customs procedures, so as to safeguard the EU’s own 
resources  and  financial  interests,  coupled  with  the  availability  of  reductions  and 
waivers for AEOs; 

7.  New simplifications of customs clearance processes for operators fulfilling some 
or all of the criteria required for obtaining the Authorised Economic Operator status, 
such as the authorisations (see section 4.1.2). 

Key to achieving the objectives of the UCC is the progression of customs to a paperless, 
integrated and fully electronic environment. To this end, the UCC established common 
rules  and  data  requirements  for  customs  pre-arrival  and  pre-departure  declarations, 
notifications, applications and decisions, which are to be processed through the upgrade or 
development of seventeen electronic systems detailed in Annex VI. 

The UCC initially provided for a transitional period ending on 31 December 2020 during 
which pre-existing electronic systems such as national import systems, and paper-based 
systems  were  accepted,  while  allowing  sufficient  time  to  develop  or  upgrade  all  the 
electronic  systems  that  under  the  UCC  should  be  used  for  the  management  of  customs 

10 

 
formalities. However, several factors led to delays in the IT implementation beyond the 
original deadline: 

1.  The end date of 2020 was chosen for financial reasons, as this was also the end date 
of  the  Multi-annual  Financial  Framework  2014-2020,  although  it  was  a  very 
ambitious deadline from the outset.  

2.  The scale and complexity of the work to complete by 2020 was underestimated in 
terms of financial and human resources, including insufficient allocation of staff. 
3.  The late adoption at the end of 2015, as a result of the complexity of the provisions 
involved and the ensuing discussions with Member States and businesses, of the 
necessary  delegated  and  implementing  rules,  including  the  common  data 
requirements, resulted in the Commission and the Member States not being able to 
comply with the original planning for the IT developments.  

4.  There were technical reasons such as the harmonisation with the international data 
models and the need to ensure the necessary sequential development of the systems 
for their correct interoperability.15  

The UCC was amended in 2019to postpone the end of the transitional period from 2020 to 
2022 for three national systems and to 2025 for six (trans-European) systems.16 The UCC 
electronic systems are being deployed by 2025 as planned (see IT planning in Annex VI). 
In addition, to better monitor the process, the UCC now clearly requires Member States to 
provide the Commission with information regarding their progress on completing the IT 
work and, based on that, the Commission must produce annual progress reports.17 

2.2   Points of comparison  

In the absence of an impact assessment of the UCC, the baseline scenario below is partially 
“reconstructed”  based  on  the  impact  assessment  on  the  proposal  for  the  UCC’s 
predecessor, the Modernised Customs Code (MCC)18, which dates back to 2003-2005, 
and on a WTO dispute between the US and the EU on customs matters. Both revealed 
a series of problems (mainly the need to shift to an electronic customs environment and to 
ensure a uniform application of customs legislation across the EU) for which Union action 
was needed, the UCC being the response to those needs.19   

15 See European Court of Auditors Special Report No 26/2018: A series of delays in Customs IT systems: 

what went wrong?   

16 Regulation (EU) 2019/632 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 amending 
Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 to prolong the transitional use of means other than the electronic data-
processing techniques provided for in the Union Customs Code (OJ L 111, 25.4.2019, p. 54). 

17   Reports from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council pursuant to Article 278a of 
the Union Customs Code, on progress in developing the electronic systems provided for under the Code: 
for 2019, COM/2019/629, for 2020 COM/2020/806, for 2021 COM/2021/791. 

18 Commission Staff Working Document SEC(2005) 1543 - Annex to the Proposal for a regulation of the 
European Parliament and of the Council laying down the community customs code and to the Proposal 
for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council implementing a paperless environment for 
customs and trade IMPACT ASSESSMENT (COM/2005/608/F) (COM/2005/609/F). 

19 European Communities – Selected Customs Matters, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS315/AB/R. 

11 

 
 
                                                           
The impact assessment on the proposal for an EU Modernised Customs Code provides 
some indication of what the situation, in terms of the functioning of the Customs Union, 
was like before the UCC and what changes were needed to adapt the customs legislation 
to the reality of an electronic customs environment20 and to simplify and restructure the 
rules contained therein.  However, since  the policy, trade and technological  context  had 
shifted  in  the  intervening  period,  the  original  impact  assessment  can  only  serve  as  an 
indicative but not  firmly established baseline for the UCC. Moreover, the MCC impact 
assessment did not quantify the scenarios and problems assessed therein, therefore it is not 
possible to report quantitative evidence from that analysis. Overall, the problems identified 
during preparatory works for the MCC oscillated around:  

a)  Paper-based  processes  and  non-interoperable  systems:  customs  procedures  and 
processes were, in the mid-2000s, mostly based on paper declarations. Although all 
Member States offered and economic operators used electronic customs clearance, 
electronic  declarations  and  the  electronic  submission  of  supporting  documentation 
were considered to be exceptions and required the approval of customs authorities. In 
addition, where electronic processes did exist, the different IT systems in the Member 
State  could  not  communicate  between  them,  due  to  the  lack  of  common  rules  for 
electronic clearance (apart from the new computerised transit system – NCTS), and of 
common standards for the use of IT in the customs area. 

b)  Insufficient trade facilitation and the need for efficient, predictable and cost-effective 

customs formalities, such as effective simplifications.  

c)  Scope  for  greater  uniformity  in  implementation  of  rules  and  decisions:  in  the 
Community Customs Code, certain operational and implementation issues were left to 
Member States’  decisions,  leading to  divergent  practices  and additional burdens for 
economic operators. Further uniformity in the implementation of customs legislation, 
simplified  and  streamlined  rules  and  more  efficient  procedures  for  adopting 
implementing provisions and guidelines were needed.  

d)  Legislation not in line with the new role of customs: the Community Customs Code 
mainly dealt with procedures aimed at ensuring that customs duties were collected and 
provided for procedures allowing a suspension of duty liability. It did not reflect the 
shift of customs work to new tasks such as:  

  enforcing  prohibitions  and  restrictions  imposed  in  order  to  ensure  the  non-
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, arms, dual-use items, the protection 
of  cultural  heritage,  of  industrial  or  commercial  property,  of  the  environment, 
including endangered species;  

  ensuring that VAT and excise duties are paid at import and certifying exit for VAT 

and excise duty exemption;  

20 See in particular the World Customs Organisation Data Model, an initiative of the WCO to simplify and 
standardize data requirements of cross-border regulatory agencies including customs. Version 1.0 of the 
Data  Model  was  developed  in  2002  based  on  a  G7  initiative  to  simplify  and  standardize  data 
requirements for reporting goods and cargo declarations to customs. Successive versions of the Data 
Model enlarged the scope of the initiative. 

12 

 
                                                           
  ensuring that the formalities for goods benefiting from export refunds are fulfilled. 

The  customs  legislation  in  the  pre-UCC  era  was  scrutinised  in  the  case  “EC  selected 
customs matters” taken by the United States against the European Communities before the 
WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in 2004-2006. The subject of the case was, amongst 
others, the alleged lack of uniformity in the application of the customs law adopted by 
the  European  Communities  (now  Union)  and  implemented  by  the  Member  States,  as 
required by Article X:3(a) GATT.  

Throughout  the  dispute,  it  was  argued  that  different  interpretations  of  EU  customs 
legislation were identified in the areas of classification of goods (e.g. conflicting Binding 
Tariff Information (BTI) decisions on the same class of goods), valuation (e.g. lack of EU 
tools for ensuring uniform application of the rules, such as a binding IT system and limited 
ability of the Commission to impose uniformity or to reconcile different interpretations), 
and customs procedures (e.g. different approaches taken by Member States in carrying 
out audits after the release of the goods, varied assessments of the economic conditions 
necessary  for  granting  the  authorisation  for  the  procedure  "processing  under  customs 
control” (now inward processing), non-uniform requirements in the Member States for the 
application of the “local clearance” procedures).21  

While the WTO appellate body found that it was “unable to complete the analysis with 
respect to  the United States’  claim  that the European Communities’ system of  customs 
administration  as  a  whole  or  overall  is  not  administered  in  a  uniform  manner”,  it 
nevertheless recommended that the European Communities take some action. The MCC 
(and therefore the UCC as its recast) was part of the Union response to that request. In 
particular, the creation under the UCC of an IT system, Binding Tariff Information (eBTI), 
to record the decisions on tariff classification adopted by the Member States addresses the 
problem  of  a  disparities  among  Member  States  on  tariff  classification.  Similarly,  the 
simplification and redefinition of the special customs procedures and the streamlining of 
the rules for issuing customs decisions are intended to address the criticism towards the 
lack of uniform application of the customs rules in these areas. 

21   These problems were further scrutinised in an evaluation of the state of the Customs Union published in 
2013,  which  identified  several  major  challenges  that  were  not  being  adequately  addressed  under  the 
previous legislative framework, leading to recommendations where progress in those areas would be 
hoped for under the UCC. Especially relevant is the finding that “the level of uniformity in a majority 
of customs processes and procedures is not satisfactory”, and the related recommendations to make use 
of “more uniform IT systems and processes”, better data management and exchange between relevant 
actors,  enhanced  common  monitoring  arrangements,  more  coordination  between  customs  and  other 
authorities. The evaluation also recommended making the rules stronger where needed, but also simpler, 
in order to increase both uniformity and efficiency (Study on the Evaluation of the Customs Union, by 
PwC Belgium/PwC The Netherlands, 2013).  

13 

 
 
                                                           
3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

3.1.  Current state of play 

The European Union is one of the largest trading blocs in the world, alongside the United 
States and China, accounting for around 14% of global trade, equivalent to a value of EUR 
3.6 trillion in 2020.  

Looking at the trend over time, as of 2012 the EU trade balance recorded a continuous 
surplus that peaked at EUR 264 billion in 2016. The EU surplus decreased in 2017 and 
2018 and started to increase again in 2019 and 2020. The increase in trade increases the 
need for efficient customs procedures. 

Looking  more  closely,  half  of  EU  external  trade  was  primarily  with  four  main 
partners in 2020: China, the United States, the United Kingdom and Switzerland. These 
were  the  same  as  in  2016,  with  the  difference  that  while  the  UK  was  a  Member  State, 
Russia was in the top 4 trade partners.  

Since the UCC entered into force in 2016, a general increase can be observed for imports 
and exports of the EU, which is reflected in increasing volumes of transactions handled 
and a generally positive if irregular trend concerning the collection of customs duties.   

14 

 
 
 
 
Amount of imports and exports 2016-2020 (in trillion EUR)

2,1
2
1,9
1,8
1,7
1,6
1,5

IMPORTS

EXPORTS

2016

1,71

1,75

2017

1,86

1,88

2018

1,98

1,96

2019

2,05

2,04

2020

1,71

1,93

IMPORTS

EXPORTS

Linear (IMPORTS)

Linear (EXPORTS)

Source: DG TAXUD data (for 2020, data are for EU27) 

Evolution of customs duties collected

27000

26500

26000

25500

25000

24500

24000

23500

€

n
o
i
l
l
i

m

Customs duties collected

Imported items

Exported Items

2016

24952

355,8

291,1

2017

25407

377,3

324,6

2018

25396

408,3

368,8

2019

26707

456,8

390,7

2020

24833

693,2

361,2

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

s

m
e
t
i

f
o
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

The evolution  in  the collection of customs  duties  shows a peak in  2019 and  significant 
decrease in 2020, compared with the value of imports in the 2020 COVID-affected year. 
This can be explained by the fact that the average value of imported item decreased from 
EUR4 443 in 2019 to EUR2 581 in 2020. Most of those items were protective equipment 
against COVID-19 (see below), which was, in certain circumstances, exempt from duties. 

New developments in the period covered by the evaluation 

Three developments arose during the evaluation period, all having a significant impact on 
how the situation(s) that the UCC was meant to regulate evolved during that time, namely: 
the COVID-19 pandemic, the increase of e-commerce and Brexit.  

In 2020, EU trade was hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic, as shown below. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
.

In March 2020 several Member States asked for a flexible application of the UCC customs 
provisions  relating  to  the  customs  decision-making  process,  duty  collection,  customs 
procedures and customs formalities so as to address problems deriving from the disruption 
of  trade  flows,  delays,  restrictive  measures  for  the  movement  of  persons  taken  by  the 
Member States and the related unavailability of staff. The Commission provided customs 
guidance  in  the  form  of  guidelines  and  other  explanatory  documents  to  illustrate  the 
solutions  offered  by  the  Code  to  address  the  exceptional  circumstances  at  play,  in  the 
absence  of  clear  exceptions  based  on  force  majeure  allowing  for  deviations  from  the 
regular application of UCC requirements.22. 

As regards e-commerce, the UCC was conceived for a business model mainly based on 
traditional trade, done by cargo vessels sailing the seas to move large quantities of similar 
goods into and outside the EU customs territory. While this model still largely exists today, 
the dramatic increase in e-commerce transactions23, in which low value consignments are 
individually shipped from third countries to the final consumers in the Union, is today one 
of the main challenges faced by customs authorities and by the customs legislation they 
are  called  to  apply.  In  order  to  solve  urgent  problems  which  had  emerged  in  this  area 
regarding  the  collection  of  VAT,  new  VAT  e-commerce  rules  were  adopted  in  201724, 
introducing a new set of fiscal requirements  aimed at regulating the flows of low value 
consignments, which are those with a value below EUR150. Customs provisions had to be 
adapted to support the enforcement of the VAT rules and requirements for e-commerce 

22   Guidance on Customs issues related to the COVID-19 emergency (DG TAXUD Website) 
23   Data from Eurostat shows that 73% of internet users in the EU shopped online in 2020, with 79% of 25 
– 54 year olds purchasing goods or services for private use online in 2020, as compared with 66% of the 
same age group in 2016 and 61% in 2013, when the UCC was adopted. 

24   Council Directive (EU) 2017/2455 of 5 December 2017 amending Directive 2006/112/EC and Directive 
2009/132/EC as regards certain value added tax obligations for supplies of services and distance sales 
of goods (OJ L 348, 29.12.2017, p. 7). 

16 

 
 
                                                           
movements.25 The new rules apply from July 2021 and are therefore outside the evaluation 
period. However, preliminary analysis of the implementation for the new rules shows  a 
massive  increase  in  volume  of  import  traffic  with  approximately  660  million  import 
declarations lodged for low value consignments only in the period July-December 202126 
(for comparison, the total number of imported items was around 690 million in the full 
year  2020).  E-commerce  transactions  are  also  problematic  as  regards  compliance  with 
prohibitions and restrictions applied in the EU linked to non-financial risks.27 

A third event, unforeseen at the time of the UCC’s drafting, which has had an impact on 
the  implementation  of  the  UCC,  is  the  UK’s  withdrawal  from  the  European  Union. 
Member States’ customs authorities were obliged to devote resources to preparing for the 
impact of their trade with the UK shifting from intra-Union trade, for which no customs 
formalities are required, to third-country trade for which full import and export formalities 
are required. Some Member States doubled the number of customs declarations that their 
systems had to process.28 

The  difficulties  in  dealing  with  customs  formalities  partly  explain  why  in  the  first  four 
months of 2021, export value to the UK (€89,6 billion) decreased by 1% and import value 
from the UK (€33 billion) decreased by 43% in relation to the same interval in 2020 (€90,1 
billion and €57,4 billion, respectively). 

3.2. 

State of implementation of the UCC package (legal and IT aspects) 

This section includes an overview of the state of the implementation of the UCC legal 
provisions and IT systems in the period 2016-2020.  

Given  the  lack  of  sufficiently  accurate,  up  to  date  and  comparable  data,  input  for  the 
implementation review was comprised mainly of  (i) desk  research and (ii) responses to 
questionnaires that all Member State customs authorities and a sample of EU level business 
organisations and individual economic operators answered, as explained in Section 1. The 
written  consultation  sought  opinions  on  the  six  main  areas  that  the  UCC  had  modified 
(namely, customs procedures and declarations; customs decisions and AEO authorisations; 

25   Amendments  to  the  UCC  delegated  and  implementing  acts  are  available  on  UCC  -  Legislation 

(europa.eu) 

26   An internal DG TAXUD survey, utilising a conservative EU-wide estimate, based on replies from postal 
and express couriers’ in 24 Member States on their e-commerce consignments during 2018, found some 
useful, higher than expected, indicators of volumes and revenue from e-commerce flows (3 to almost 6 
times the estimation done for the VAT package, which estimated that total online expenditure on goods 
and services in 2015 was EUR 540 billion across the  EU-28. [Commission Staff Working Document 
Impact  Assessment  Accompanying  the  document  “Proposals  for  a  Council  Directive,  a  Council 
Implementing  Regulation  and  a  Council  Regulation  on  Modernising  VAT  for  cross-border  B2C  e-
Commerce”, SWD(2016) 379]. 

27 See for example ECHA’s Forum REF-8 project report on enforcement of CLP, REACH and BPR duties 

related to substances, mixtures and articles sold online   
https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/17088/project_report_ref-8_en.pdf/ccf2c453-da0e-c185-
908e-3a0343b25802?t=1638885422475 

28   Source: Surveillance system. Surveillance data are created based on customs declarations that may be 
modified, corrected or deleted, according to the applicable UCC rules. Therefore, the information in the 
text is provided as an indication and may contain errors. 

17 

 
                                                           
centralised  systems  related  to  the  rules  on  tariff,  origin,  valuation;  customs  debt  and 
guarantees; formalities for the entry of goods and temporary storage;  special procedures) 
and covered in total 24 sets of legal provisions. 

Implementation of the UCC legal provisions 

Given the many and diverse provisions under review, it is difficult to draw simple, general 
conclusions about the state of implementation.  However, national customs authorities 
indicate that progress with implementation of the legal provisions is largely on track 
within  the  frame  of  deadlines  as  currently  defined,  while  keeping  in  mind  that  the 
timeframe for certain provisions has been extended in line with the delays to related IT 
projects. Economic operators showed more concern about the progress made, but this 
likely relates to communication issues, which prevent them from being fully aware of the 
periodic amendments that have been made to the UCC provisions.   

Table 1: How would you rate the overall state of implementation of the UCC in your country 
with regard to the deadlines as they are defined at the time of writing?  

Application of the legal 
provisions 

Ahead of 
schedule 

National customs 
authorities  

Economic operators  

- 

- 

On 
track 

20 
(74%) 

Somewhat 
behind 
schedule 

Facing 
significant 
delays 

Don’t 
know 

No 
response 

4 (15%) 

-  

- 

3 (11%) 

6 (29%) 

5 (24%) 

2 (10%) 

2 (10%) 

6 (29%) 

Source: Economisti Associati (2021); Base: 27 Member States, 21 economic operators (TCG members). 

Concerning  the  difficulties  in  implementing  the  above  mentioned  24  sets  of  legal 
provisions,  customs  authorities  and  economic  operators  indicated  that  no  sets  of  legal 
provisions are – on average – generating ‘major’ difficulties and challenges.  They 
found on average ‘minor’ challenges in implementing all sets of provisions. Authorities 
and  economic  operators  also  expressed  broadly  similar  views,  with  exceptions  mostly 
reflecting their differing roles in the customs ecosystem. For example, the reduction in the 
types of customs warehouses created more difficulties for economic operators that needed 
to adjust their business processes (see Annex VII).  

Based on desk research, questionnaires and interviews with customs authorities and traders 
in the selected ten Member States, the 24 sets of UCC legal provisions can be categorised 
into four groups, according to the difficulties in implementing the provisions and to the 
uniformity of how they have been/are implemented by the Member States.  

Table 2: Difficulties with implementation by category of provisions   
None to minor implementation 
difficulties 
Group 1 

Moderate to major implementation 
challenges 
Group 3 

Relatively 
uniform 
understanding 
/ application  

  Increased scope of compulsory 

guarantees  

  Guarantees that are valid in more than 

one Member State 

  Assessment of a customs debt / 
establishing reference amount 

  Harmonised data requirements 
  Changes for low-value consignments 
  Review of pre-existing authorisations 
  Lodgement and treatment of ENS and 

other ‘Pentalogy’ steps 

18 

 
 
 
  Time limits for customs decisions 
  Binding nature of BTI and BOI 

  Comprehensive guarantees 
  Reduction in the types of customs 

decisions 

warehouses  

  Possibility to lodge BTI / BOI 
applications for any customs 
procedure 

  Deletion of the concept and list of 

sensitive goods 

Group 2 

Group 4 

Relatively 
large 
discrepancies 
between 
Member 
States 

  Rules for temporary storage  
  New AEO criterion 
  Decisions on extinguishment of a 

customs debt 
  Right to be heard 
  Simplification of the rules on free 

zones 

Source: Economisti Associati (2021) 

  Simplifications (i.e. EIDR, self-

assessment and SASP) 

  Reduced / waived guarantees 
  Electronic declarations 
  Use of electronic transport docs as 

transit declarations 

  Common provisions for special 

procedures 

  Rules for customs valuation 

The  first  group  is  comprised  of  seven    sets  of  provisions  relating  mostly  to  legislative 
changes that are independent of IT developments and that have been implemented largely 
to plan, in a relatively uniform way across Member States. For example, in the case of the 
increased  scope  of  compulsory  guarantees,  the  introduction  of  guarantees  that  are 
valid in more than one Member State and the imposition of time limits for customs 
decisions,  the  targeted  consultation  customs  officials  confirmed  that  these  crucial 
provisions are being applied in a uniform way, while no major problem arose in terms of 
implementation. 

The second group  includes  provisions where the Member States have adopted different 
approaches but where implementation has nonetheless posed few or only minor challenges 
so far. For example, during the interviews several Member States complained about the 
lack of clarity and guidance for applying the new ground for the extinguishment of a 
customs debt, but none to date had experienced a situation where this new ground would 
actually need to be applied.  Different approaches based on more uniform rules without 
significant problems also relate to temporary storage and to the new AEO criterion on 
practical standards of competence or professional qualifications.  

Group 3 contains provisions that have been problematic despite largely harmonised rules, 
because they entail more complex, interrelated changes, and/or rules concerning delays to 
IT developments. In case of the harmonised data requirements, given the varied starting 
points of each Member State and the frequent changes for adapting the IT systems, hardly 
any Member States have been able to apply the common requirements introduced by the 
UCC. This problem has been solved with the new Annexes B that was published in March 
2021.29 Other sets of provisions in this group are based on similar dynamic. For example, 

29 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/234 of 7 December 2020 amending Delegated Regulation 
(EU) 2015/2446 as regards common data  requirements, and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/341 as 
regards the codes to be used in certain forms (OJ L 63, 23.2.2021, p. 1); Commission Implementing 

19 

 
                                                           
several Member States pointed to difficulties in applying comprehensive guarantees, in 
part because the  IT developments  are still  ongoing. With regard to  the  lodgement and 
treatment  of  ENS,  customs  administrations  are  facing  disruption  both  due  to  the 
fluctuating IT specifications, and reliance on the on-going ICS2 IT project. Overall, the 
difficulties  in  implementing these sets  of provisions highlight  the difficulty of applying 
harmonising  rules  and  practices  in  areas  where  Member  States  previously  had  more 
discretion, which has led to some friction. 

The  last  group  consists  of  provisions  where  a  lack  of  clarity  and/or  divergent 
interpretations  of  the  rules  have  already  caused  significant  problems.  These  were 
especially  acute  (particularly  for  economic  operators)  with  regard 
to  several 
simplifications, namely the possibility to lodge customs declarations via an entry in the 
declarant’s records (EIDR), the self-assessment authorisation and the Single Authorisation 
for Simplified Procedures (SASP, the predecessor of the centralised clearance). Economic 
operators  considered  the  simplifications  unattractive,  partly  because  of  the  non-
harmonised  approaches  being  taken  across  Member  States.  For  example,  since  EIDR 
corresponds closely to simplifications already available at national level before the UCC, 
those Member States that already had processes in place could implement the new rule 
seamlessly, but for those who had not, the alignment was more challenging and the risk of 
divergent practices augmented. In case of self-assessment, this has not been applied in any 
Member States, which seems at least partly because national customs authorities are not 
sure how it should be implemented. For reduced and waived guarantees, some customs 
authorities reported a lack of clarity in how to apply this possibility for AEOs in practice, 
which lead inevitably to discrepancies across Member States. Economic operators cited 
difficulties  in  the  area  of  electronic  customs  declarations,  because  these  continue  to 
depend on IT systems and requirements that vary by country. Despite the efforts to improve 
legal  clarity  for  some  of  these  sets  of  provisions,  e.g.  for  the  interpretation  of  rules  on 
customs valuation, for other areas proper guidance and clarity is still lacking. One of the 
most  significant  UCC  simplifications,  centralised  clearance,  is  evidently  awaited  by 
stakeholders  as  a  major  benefit,  but  is  dependent    on  the  completion  of  the  IT  project 
Centralised Clearance at Import (CCI). 

Infringements 

Compliance  by  Member  States  with  the  provisions  of  the  UCC  has  been  mostly 
commendable. In the years 2016 – 2020, 156 complaints were registered in CHAP30, 13 
EU Pilots were launched31 leading to 5 infringement or potential infringement procedures. 
Of these 5, 3 were resolved and closed before reaching the stage of issuance of a letter of 
formal notice, and 2 are yet to be launched. The categories of provisions that were most 

Regulation (EU) 2021/235 of 8 February 2021 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 as 
regards formats and codes of common data requirements, certain rules on surveillance and the competent 
customs office for placing goods under a customs procedure (OJ L 63, 23.2.2021, p. 386). 

30 CHAP is an application for handling complaints and queries from citizens and legal entities concerning 

the application of Community law by Member States. 

31 A further 15 EU Pilots were initiated in 2020, though they were not officially opened until 2021, which is 

outside the temporal scope of the evaluation.  

20 

 
                                                           
frequently the subject of proceedings concerned the value of goods for customs purposes 
(Article 69 UCC, four proceedings), followed by the limitation of the customs debt (Article 
103 UCC, three proceedings).32 

Implementation of the UCC IT systems 

At the end of 2020, the Commission can report the successful completion of eight systems 
out  of  seventeen.  The  remaining  nine  IT  systems  will  be  deployed  progressively  until 
202533. A detailed list and planning of the systems is included in Annex VI. 

Around  half  of  the  consulted  Member  States  reported  that  the  overall  state  of 
implementation  of  the  UCC  IT  systems  was  on  track,  while  less  than  a  third 
acknowledged  it  was  somewhat  behind  schedule.  However,  the  latter  finding  likely 
refers  to  work  on  the  systems  that  were  delayed  legally,  whose  scheduled  dates  for 
completion are in 2022 and 2025.  Economic operators were less optimistic, with three 
quarters of respondents to the questionnaires reporting some or even significant delays. 
However,  their  opinion  could  relate  to  economic  operators’  reduced  awareness  of  the 
details of the IT projects and continued focus on the original deadlines. 

Table 3: How would you rate the overall state of implementation of the UCC [with regard to 
the  development  and  deployment  of  the  IT  systems]  in  your  country  with  regard  to  the 
deadlines as they are defined at the time of writing?  

Development and 
deployment of the IT 
systems 
National customs 
authorities  

Economic operators  

Ahead  of 
schedule 

On track 

Somewhat 
behind 
schedule 

Facing 
significant 
delays 

Don’t 
know 

No 
response 

- 

- 

13 (48%) 

10 (37%) 

-  

- 

4 (15%) 

3 (14%) 

7 (33%) 

2 (10%) 

3 
(14%) 

6 (29%) 

Source: Economisti Associati (2021) 

Stakeholders were also consulted on specific difficulties with the implementation of the 
main IT changes introduced by the UCC. 

The  group  of  systems  that  was  deemed  to  have  given  rise  to  the  most  significant 
implementation  problems  by  both  Member  States  and  economic  operators  include  the 
National Import Systems (due at the end of 2022), Automated Export System (AES, 
due in 2023), Centralised Clearance at Import (CCI, phase 1 in 2023, phase 2 in 2025) 
and  Proof  of  Union  Status  (PoUS,  due  in  2024/25).  This  was  followed  by  a  group  of 
systems  that  have  already  been  deployed:  Customs  Decisions  System  (CDS),  Trader 
Portal, and the Economic Operator System/Authorised Economic Operator database 
(EOS/AEO). The third group of systems that, according to respondents from both groups, 
has caused “moderate” difficulties on average is the Import Control System 2 (ICS2, for 
which, after the questionnaire was completed, the first release was deployed on 15 March 
2021, final release in 2024).  

32 Of the EU Pilots opened in 2021, and outside the temporal scope of this evaluation, article 103 is by far 

the forerunner, relating to 11 of the actions. 

33 According to the UCC Work Programme, and to the latest version of the Multi-Annual Strategic Plan for 

Customs (MASP-C). See Annex VI and COM(2020) 806 final. 

21 

 
                                                           
the  main  difference  being 

Overall,  difficulties  encountered by Member States  and economic operators were fairly 
the 
consistent, 
implementation of the IT systems for notification of arrival, presentation notification 
and  temporary  storage  (NA,  PN  and  TS)  to  be  far  more  problematic  than  economic 
operators (presumably because the latter are largely unaffected by them, for the time being 
at least).  

that  customs  authorities  perceived 

Regarding the eight IT systems that have already been deployed in the period 2016-
2020, customs authorities encountered only minor challenges and are very satisfied with 
EORI, the EOs/AEO system, REX, and UUM&DS.  

Figure 3: Are the following new/upgraded IT systems functioning satisfactorily? 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

REX

UUM&DS

EORI

26%

26%

33%

Central CDS

7%

52%

Country’s National CDS

15%

19%

4%

56%

52%

56%

4%

7%

7%

7%

11%

4%

11%

7%

4%

4%

26%

44%

EU Trader Portal

7%

63%

22%

4%

4%

Country’s National Trader Portal

15%

11%

4%

4%

44%

EOS/AEO System

26%

59%

4%

7%

4%

eBTI

4%

67%

22%

4%

4%

SURV3

19%

30%

7%

26%

19%

Fully satisfactory

Mostly satisfactory

Partly satisfactory

Not satisfactory

Don’t know

Missing values

Source: Economisti Associati (2021) 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

4.1.  Preliminary remarks 

The findings below are based on the specific findings for the eight topics selected for in-
depth  analysis.  These  topics  are  meant  to  be  a  balanced  choice  reflecting  i)  the  UCC 
changes  that  stakeholders  perceive  as  most  important,  ii)  changes  that  produced  real 
benefits or posed significant challenges and iii) changes that are already implemented and 
from  which  data  and  evidence  can  be  collected.  The  sample  is  therefore  considered  as 
indicative of the overall performance of the UCC to date, in spite of the limited quantitative 
data. 

Table 4: List and description of the eight key issues covered by the evaluation 

Key issue/change 

Brief description 

Harmonised data 
requirements 

The  UCC  has  harmonised  the  information  that  is  required  in  the  different 
customs declarations and decisions (data  requirements) throughout the EU. 
They  are  defined  in  great  detail  in  the  UCC  delegated  and  implementing 
regulations (Annexes A and B). This is to facilitate the interoperability of the 
IT  systems,  the  harmonised  application  of  the  rules,  and  alignment  with 
international customs data models. However, due to frequent changes to the 
Annexes,  and  significant  delays  with  the  development  of  some  crucial  IT 

22 

 
 
Key issue/change 

Brief description 

systems, the  harmonised data requirements are  not  yet fully applied by the 
Member States. The requirements were revamped and stabilised in 2021. 

Before  the  UCC,  electronic  declarations  and  in  particular  the  electronic 
submission of supporting documentation were considered to be exceptions. 
Moreover, where electronic processes did exist, the different IT systems in the 
Member  States  could  not  communicate  between  them,  due  to  the  lack  of 
harmonisation  of  the  data  elements  and  their  structure,  and  of  common 
standards  for  the  use  of  IT  in  the  customs  area.  There  were  more  data 
elements optional for different Member States.  

The UCC comprehensively recast and streamlined  the rules and procedures 
regarding  the  various  types  of  customs  decisions  (UCC  Art.  22-37).  This 
includes  new  time  limits  for  decisions  upon  application.  A  new,  trans-
European  IT  system  (CDS)  to  harmonise  the  processes  for  application  and 
management of customs decisions, in particular authorisations, was deployed 
in 2017 and upgraded in 2020.  

Before  the  UCC,  each  type  of  customs  decision  and  authorisation  was 
regulated by separate rules, which sometimes were repetitive and most of the 
procedural  rules  were  dependent  on  the  national  law.  There  was  not  a 
dedicated  IT  system  at  EU  level  for  submitting  and  processing  the 
applications for decisions and for some of the decisions no specific deadlines 
for  customs  authorities  to  issue  decisions,  generating  divergent  practices 
across the Union. 

Authorised Economic Operators are operators being recognised a high level 
of trustworthiness for customs purposes. The UCC introduced a new criterion 
to  become  AEO  related  to  possessing  proven  practical  standards  of 
competence or professional qualifications was introduced (UCC Art. 39(d)). 
Other AEO criteria were strengthened by adding additional conditions (UCC 
Art. 39(a), (b), (c) and (e)). The AEO IT system was upgraded to align the 
business  processes  related  to  AEO  applications,  authorisations  and  their 
management with the UCC changes.  

The  AEO  concept  is based on  standards  introduced  by  the  World  Customs 
Organisation  (WCO)  and  was  introduced  in  EU  law  in  2008  through  the 
'security  amendments'  to  the  Community  Customs  Code.  Traders  who 
voluntarily meet specific conditions work in close cooperation with customs 
authorities to assure the common objective of supply chain security and are 
entitled to enjoy benefits throughout the EU. The experience gained during 
the  implementation  of  the  AEO  programme  indicated  a  need  to  strengthen 
some  of  the  AEO  requirements.  At  the  end  of  2020,  there  were  14,868 
operators  authorised  as  AEO,  which  were  involved  in  74,3%  of  the  total 
Union  imports  and  83%  of  the  total  Union  exports.  AEO  are  therefore 
relevant to a very significant part of Union trade.34  

Risk management is the whole of the activities that seek to ensure that customs 
controls are based on electronic risk analysis with the purpose of identifying 
and  evaluating  the  risks,  and  developing  the  necessary  counter-measures, 
based on criteria developed at national or Union level. The UCC provides the 
legal base package to establish an EU Common Risk Management Framework 
and common action in this area (UCC Art. 46-50s). However, the UCC also 
provides  significant  room  for  Member  State  discretion.  The  focus  of  the 
evaluation  was  on  whether  the  UCC  provides  an  adequate  framework  for 

Harmonised rules and 
procedures for 
customs decisions 

Obtaining and 
monitoring Authorised 
Economic Operator 
(AEO) status 

Risk management and 
controls 

34 At the end of 2020, there were 14,868 operators authorised as AEO, which were involved in 74,3% of the 
total Union imports and 83% of the total Union exports. AEO are therefore relevant to a very significant part 
of Union trade. The number of economic operators that were granted the AEO status decreased from 15574 
in 2016 to 14868 in 2020, due to a strong decline in applications (almost by half) between 2019 and 2020 
(source: Customs Union Performance 2020).  

23 

 
                                                           
Key issue/change 

Brief description 

Centralised IT systems 
for the implementation 
of rules on customs 
tariff, origin and 
valuation 

Guarantees and 
guarantee 
management 

Changes to temporary 
storage requirements  

Customs 
Simplifications  

achieving a uniform level of controls that ensures the safety and security of 
the EU and its residents. 

Certain  core  common  provisions  on  risk  management  and  controls  existed 
even before the UCC, however the majority of the operational rules were left 
to  the  discretion  of  national  implementation.  There  were  very  limited 
provisions allowing for the exchange of information between Members States 
and with the Commission, including for areas like security and safety.  

The UCC Work Programme foresees three IT centralised systems to support 
the  implementation  of  UCC  rules  on  customs  tariff,  origin  and  valuation, 
namely EBTI, REX and SURV3.  

These three IT systems did not exist before the UCC.   

The UCC requires mandatory guarantees in more situations, as well as more 
situations where the guarantee must also cover import VAT and excise duty.  

Before the UCC, there were more cases where Member States could decide at 
national  level  whether  to  require  a  guarantee  or  not.  This  resulted  on  one 
hand, in different treatment of economic operators and on the other hand, in 
problems for collecting the customs debt when incurred.   

The UCC introduced new rules for temporary storage (which is the situation 
in  which  goods  are  before  they  are  declared  for  any  other  procedure), 
including the need for an authorisation to run temporary storage locations, the 
maximum duration of that situation, allowing movements between temporary 
storage facilitates and ability to make declarations in advance. 

Before  the  UCC,  most  of  the  rules  governing  temporary  storage  were 
national. The  period for which goods could  stay in temporary storage was 
also  much  shorter,  which  was  considered  problematic  for  certain  business 
models as well as for customs authorities.  It was also not possible to move 
goods  between  different  temporary  storage  facilities  without  placing  the 
goods under transit.  

The  UCC  introduced  several  new  simplifications  to  the  customs  clearance 
process:  
a)  entry  in  the  declarant's  records  (EIDR)  authorises  the  holder  to  lodge  a 
customs declaration in the form of an entry into the declarant’s own records, 
provided  that  the  particulars  of  that  declaration  are  at  the  disposal  of  the 
customs authorities in the declarant's system when the declaration is lodged;  
(b) centralised clearance authorises a holder to lodge, or make available, at 
the customs office where he is established, a customs declaration for goods, 
which are presented to customs at another customs office within the customs 
territory of the Union;  
(c) self-assessment authorises an AEO to carry out certain customs formalities 
that are to be carried out by the customs authorities, to determine the amount 
of  import  duty  payable,  and  to  perform  certain  controls  under  customs 
supervision.  
Other customs simplifications are the reduction or waiver of comprehensive 
guarantees and the permission to move goods to another Member State while 
they are still under temporary storage without using transit. 
There were a number of customs simplifications  even before the UCC (e.g. 
local clearance procedure and simplified declarations). However, their use 
was  not  harmonised  across  the  Member  States,  which  resulted  on  the  one 
hand in different treatment of economic operators and on the other hand in 
weaknesses in the level of controls.    

24 

 
 
 
4.2.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why? [RELATED CRITERIA 

TO ASSESS: EFFECTIVENESS, EFFICIENCY, COHERENCE] 

The implementation  of the UCC legal  and  IT framework in  the first  five years after its 
entry into force is only partially successful. The UCC provided some tangible progress in 
improving  the  customs  environment.  However,  such  achievements  are  not  evenly 
distributed across all the topics analysed in the evaluation and were realised at significant 
costs, in the expectation of future benefits that have not fully materialised in the period 
covered by this evaluation, for different reasons that will be examined in this chapter. This 
concerns in particular the provisions which rely on the deployment of IT systems that were 
delayed. In addition, the UCC implementation did not fully tap into the potential synergies 
with  related  policies  and  proper  coordination  between  customs  authorities  and  other 
relevant national administrations in charge of applying EU policies at the border. 

To  analyse  whether  the  UCC  has  been  successful  a  comparison  is  made  between  its 
achievements in the period under consideration and the expectations of the legislator when 
the  intervention  was  adopted,  which  are  reflected  in  the  objectives  of  the  UCC.  Such 
comparison  also  takes  into  consideration  the  benefits  brought  by  the  UCC  against  a 
description of the costs implicit in the implementation of the intervention.  

4.2.1 Effectiveness and Efficiency 

The UCC was expected: (a) to streamline and simplify customs rules and processes, (b) to 
provide  legal  certainty  and  predictability  and  (c)  to  create  a  paperless  customs 
environment.  The  evaluation  demonstrates  that  the  UCC  was  in  part  successful  in 
contributing to the achievement of these specific objectives, which translated into some 
tangible,  direct  benefits  for  the  stakeholders  involved  in  customs  activities,  in  terms  of 
simplification of customs clearance. However, the overall success is limited by structural, 
sometimes  inevitable  factors  (e.g.  Covid-19  pandemic,  Brexit)  that  required  shifts  in 
implementation planning, relatively high initial costs and by transitional challenges that 
are expected to be solved over time. Brexit, in particular, necessitated significant advance 
preparatory work, commencing in 2017, to ensure customs operators and authorities would 
remain fully operational after the consequences of the UK’s withdrawal from the European 
Union took effect. 

The technical nature and interdependencies between various customs processes and rules 
makes it difficult to assess whether the problem is at Union level or at the Member States 
level. Unclear and/or complex legal provisions are to be associated with the Union level. 
However,  the  review  shows  that  Member  States  and  economic  operators  also  found 
moderate  to  major  difficulties  in  the  implementation  of  rules  of  relatively  uniform 
understanding (e.g. harmonised data requirements).   

The examination of the individual topics or groups of provisions covered by the evaluation 
provides a detailed insight into the general findings under the criteria of effectiveness and 
efficiency (see also Annex II).  As regards the latter, it must be noted that in addition to 
limited availability of quantitative data, another factor that complicated the assessment is 
that at  the current  point  in  time  significant  transition and adaptation  costs have  already 

25 

 
been  incurred,  but  the  gradual  deployment  of  the  IT  systems  (and  hence  the  full 
implementation  of  many  rules  and  requirements)  is  still  in  progress,  meaning  the  most 
significant expected benefits will materialise once those systems are operational. 

Objective to streamline and simplify customs rules and processes 

The  extensive  consultation  activities  showed  the  UCC  succeeded  in  streamlining 
customs rules in certain areas, insofar as it has rationalised, structured and framed the 
provisions  better  than  under  the  Community  Customs  Code,  and  eliminated  some 
redundant or unnecessary provisions. Referring to streamlining, three quarters of Member 
States reported some progress against this objective, with 24% of them saying that progress 
was significant (Figure 4). For around half of the respondents to the public consultation 
(65, mainly economic operators), the UCC contributed to the rationalisation of customs 
legislation in some or in a significant way (Figure 5). 

Figure 4: How much progress do you think has been made towards the specific objectives of 
the UCC since its substantive provisions entered into force on 1 May 2016? 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

To streamline customs rules, procedures and
processes

24%

To strengthen legal certainty and predictability of
customs rules

12%

76%

76%

To achieve a fully paperless customs environment

24%

72%

8% 4%

4%

Significant progress

Some progress

Very little progress

No progress

Don’t know

Source: Implementation questionnaire, Economisti Associati (2021) (2021) ; Base: 25 national customs authorities. 

Figure 5: To what extent did the UCC and its implementation to date contribute to progress 
towards these objectives? 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Achieve a fully paperless environment (by ensuring all
customs declarations and operations can be made
electronically)

Streamline and simplify customs rules, procedures and
processes

17%

47%

18%

4%

13%

17%

37%

26%

7%

13%

Strengthen legal certainty and predictability of customs
rules

12%

36%

22%

14%

15%

UCC contributed a lot

UCC contributed to some extent UCC contributed a little

UCC did not contribute at all

Don't know

Source: Public consultation – UCC Interim evaluation (2021). 

There  are  several  examples  of  the  progress  made  by  the  UCC  towards  streamlining 
customs rules: 

  Customs decisions: the UCC has replaced, with a set of common rules located among 
the general provisions, rules that previously differed depending on the type of decision 

26 

 
 
 
and were included in the different parts of the old Community Customs Code. Rules 
are now implemented through a new, trans-European IT system - the Customs Decision 
System  (see  infra,  page  36),  which  harmonises  the  processes  for  application  and 
management of customs decisions, in particular authorisations. 

  Temporary  storage:  the  introduction  of  the  90-day  maximum  duration  and  the 
possibility to authorise a movement of goods from one temporary storage facility to 
another without a transit procedure, was assessed positively.  

  The harmonised framework for guarantees increased uniformity in the approaches 

of customs administrations to implementation.  

  The  harmonised  data  requirements  are  seen  by  stakeholders  as  broadly  fit  for 
purpose,  comprehensive,  logically  structured,  and  reasonably  clear,  although  their 
frequent  changes affected the legal certainty on the common data requirements (see 
infra).  

However, the success is less evident regarding the simplification objective. According 
to interviews with customs officials, a few specific areas were seen as simplified, while 
other  elements  have  become  more  complex,  which  can  be  attributed  to  the  fact  that 
complex situations require more detailed rules. The reasons for this are both general (the 
need to deal with an increasingly complex global trade context), and structural, as the legal 
package  is  a  vast,  highly  technical  framework  of  rules  that  maintains  a  certain  level  of 
complexity,  as  too  did  its  predecessor.35  The  amount  of  practical  simplification  of  the 
customs clearance processes achieved by the UCC legal framework and its implementation 
to  date  has  fallen  well  short  of  the  expectations  of  economic  operators,  which  was 
confirmed by many of the interviewed customs authorities. In particular,  

  Customs  decisions:  the  common  requirements  simplified  the  process  both  across 
different  types  of  applications,  but  also  across  Member  States,  contributing  to  the 
reduction in differences in the requirements and processes.  

  Centralised  IT  systems  supporting  the  implementation  of  UCC  rules  on  customs 
tariff, origin and valuation: customs authorities and economic operators agree that they 
have successfully streamlined and simplified the related rules.  

  The harmonised data requirements has led to certain elements being defined in more 
detail  and  broken  down  in  a  more  granular  way,  which  has  increased  their  overall 
complexity.  If  for  some  customs  administrations  this  was  seen  as  inevitable  and 
ultimately beneficial, economic operators perceive it as an increasing burden mainly 
related  to  the  need  to  update  their  systems  and  to  the  fact  that  national  customs 
authorities may require certain additional data elements. 

  The 90-day maximum duration for temporary storage, while reportedly making the 
monitoring simpler for some customs authorities (due to having only one maximum 
duration),  has made the situation more complex for most economic operators consulted 
by imposing requirements for a guarantee, the need to obtain an authorisation and to 
designate a specified location for temporary storage.  

  For  example,  for  some  customs  authorities  and  economic  operators  the  new,  more 
detailed criteria and conditions introduced by the UCC to obtain the AEO status 

35 Economisti Associati (2021), page 51. 

27 

 
                                                           
have  added  complexity  without  giving  operators  access  to  significant  additional 
simplifications.  

  Similarly, provisions on guarantees were clarified and streamlined to a certain extent 
but  for  stakeholders  the  new  rules  did  not  become  simpler  than  under  the  previous 
code. The additional cases where the provision of a guarantee is mandatory, as well as 
where  the  guarantee  must  cover  import  VAT  and  excise  duty  made  it  simpler  for 
economic  operators  operating  in  several  markets,  but  increased  perceptions  of 
complexity among those active in a single or small number of Member States. 

  Customs 

and 

customs 

operators 

economic 

simplifications: 

authorities 
overwhelmingly  agreed  that  the  UCC  had  not  brought  any  significant  new  or 
enhanced  simplifications  for  traders.  Of  the  two  which  were  deemed  to  have  the 
highest potential to generate significant benefits, self-assessment has turned out to be 
impossible to implement, and EU-level centralised clearance for import will only be 
deployed in 2023.36 Such difficulties are due to failures of implementation at both a 
UCC and national level. On the one hand, due to parallel developments in other policy 
areas and their crossover with customs, e.g. various prohibitions and restrictions, the 
actual  scope  of  customs  simplifications  had  to  be  narrow,  thus  making  them  less 
attractive for both national authorities and economic operators. On the other hand, in 
the area of customs simplifications, the UCC contains a lot of ‘may’ provisions so that 
the actual implementation is to a large extent dependent on the discretion of Member 
States. The targeted consultation of customs authorities confirmed that further clarity 
and  guidance  for  such  “optional”  provisions  are  needed  if  they  are  to  be  fully 
implemented and their potential to be fully realised.  

  Other  aspects:  economic  operators  pointed  that  the  increase  in  the  number  of 
authorisations required as a result of the UCC  and other aspects have become more 
burdensome under the UCC.37 

As for the costs, in addition to the inevitable one-off costs regarding familiarisation and 
training on certain new rules and requirements necessary to bring a large number of staff 
up to date, the recurring administrative, compliance and enforcement costs of customs 
procedures and processes have not increased or decreased significantly.  

Anecdotal evidence from the questionnaires and interviews include the experience of two 
customs  authorities,  one  spending  EUR14  per  hour  for  100  hours  of  workshops  for 
informing and training economic operators about the new customs decision rules and the 
CDS, and another one mentioning a total of 50 hours for training on customs decisions at 
EUR13 per hour. One economic operator reported an expenditure of EUR8.000 for training 
its staff on the AEO requirements as restructured by the UCC. Member States incurred 
costs related to the adaptation to the new rules, in particular the mandatory re-assessment 
of authorisations issued before the UCC, with one Member State reporting around 1,000 

36 On the other hand, at the end of 2020, the total number of valid authorisations for the use of simplifications 
for import and export (EIDR, use of simplified declarations) was just over 30 thousand (excluding the 
United Kingdom 29 080). Source: Customs Union Performance 2020. 

37 Economisti Associati (2021), page 56. 

28 

 
                                                           
full audits to re-assess all AEO authorisations issued before 2016)38, and in some cases for 
training  of  customs  officials.  It  can  be  assumed  that  a  large  number  of  customs 
administrations  and  economic  operators  incurred  similar  costs,  although  other  customs 
authorities did not share precise and comparable data.  

Regarding guarantees, customs authorities and economic operators faced relatively minor 
one-off  costs  to  implement  and  apply  the  new  rules.  However,  the  increased  scope  of 
compulsory guarantees requiring reference amounts to be calculated and monitored, has 
led to  increased  recurring administrative as well as compliance costs  for economic 
operators, with most interviewees describing the former as more significant than the latter, 
since the reference amounts need to be monitored even if the guarantee is waived (which 
was the case for many interviewees). The majority of economic operators who provided 
information on the guarantee regime reported an increase in administrative burdens due to 
having to spend more time on determining and monitoring the reference amount, with one 
estimating they now need an additional 0.25 full-time equivalents (FTEs) to comply with 
the changed rules. On the other hand, the compliance costs (in terms of the capital outlay) 
were described as minimal or non-existent by most interviewees, since their total stock of 
guarantees increased only marginally or not at all under the UCC. Compliance costs would 
presumably  be  more  significant  for  non-AEOs,  who  typically  cannot  have  guarantees 
waived but who formed a relatively small share of our sample. There are also enforcement 
costs  for  national  customs  authorities  (some,  but  not  all,  interviewed  customs 
administrations  reported  increased  recurring  costs  for  processing  guarantees,  due  to  an 
increase in the number of authorisations and/or the average time spent per guarantee in 
determining  and  monitoring  the  reference  amount),  but  these  have  been  at  least  partly 
outweighed  by  the  benefits,  which  included  harmonisation  of  the  rules  across  the  EU, 
which saves time for customs officials. The increased scope of compulsory guarantees also 
contributes  to  securing  the  collection  of  customs  duties,  and  hence  to  protecting  the 
financial interests of the EU and its Member States, although there was some disagreement 
among  interviewees  about  the  extent  of  this,  with  some  arguing  that  guarantees  were 
already compulsory for higher-risk procedures pre-UCC, and their extension to more (less 
risky) procedures offers only minor benefits in this respect. 

There is  a  shared  general  expectation  among stakeholders  that, once all  IT systems  are 
fully operational,  and  all relevant  UCC processes fully digitalised and harmonised, this 
will lead to substantial cost savings for both economic operators and customs.  

In terms of benefits, in  the areas  where the rules have become more rational and well-
structured, they are easier to comprehend and apply, with time savings associated to the 
use of the Customs Decision System, e.g. processing times and the tracking of time limits 
prescribed by the UCC rules for both customs officials and traders having to enforce or 
comply  with  said  rules.  According  to  them,  this  applies  to  customs  decisions,  rules  on 
classification and valuation handled by central  IT systems,  guarantees management and 
special  procedures.  However,  in  the  bigger  picture,  such  savings  are  minor,  whereas 

38 In 2020, the total number of AEO authorisations reassessed by the Member States (EU27) was 424, while 

another 292 was undergoing a reassessment (Source: CUP report 2020). 

29 

 
                                                           
potentially  more  significant  savings  from  substantially  simpler  rules  have  not 
materialised.39 Further details are provided in the section on the detailed findings on the 
UCC selected key issues in section 4.2. 

Objective to provide legal certainty and predictability 

The  UCC  has  marginally  contributed  to  strengthening  the  legal  certainty  and 
predictability  of  customs  rules,  procedures  and  processes.  The  interviews  to  the 
national customs authorities reveal that this is the specific objective in respect of which the 
least significant progress has been made. Three quarters of national customs authorities 
reported that ‘some’ progress had been made, but only three saw ‘significant’ progress, 
and  the  same  number  saw  very  little  or  even  no  progress  (Figure  4  above).  Similarly, 
almost half of the respondents to the public consultation (mainly businesses) indicated that 
customs in the UCC had made ‘significant’ or ‘some’ progress towards strengthened legal 
certainty and predictability, while over a third saw very little or no progress, and only a 
small or no UCC contribution (Figure 5 above). 

Nearly all customs officials interviewed agreed that, to a greater or lesser extent, the UCC 
legal framework has contributed to enhanced certainty and predictability via three main 
mechanisms:  

1)  by defining certain aspects more clearly and precisely in the legal text. As an example, 
the new AEO legislation is considerably more detailed and comprehensive in relation 
to  the  conditions  to  be  fulfilled  to  obtain  the  AEO  status  and  this  provides  legal 
certainty.  Certainty  also  came  from  non-legal  texts:  while  the  provisions  regarding 
compliance  with  taxation  rules  had  initially  raised  some  interpretation  issues  that 
culminated  in  a  case  before  the  European  Court  of  Justice40,  the  AEO  guidelines 
clarified the issue and thus strengthened the clarity of the provisions.41  

2)  by harmonising rules and elements that had previously been left to the discretion of 
Member States. For example, the binding time limits for taking customs decisions 
imposed by the UCC were seen by many stakeholders as a significant improvement, 
eliminating  the  possibility  of  applicants  having  to  wait  an  unknown  and  potentially 
indefinite period of time for customs to process their applications (which reportedly 
was not  a frequent  occurrence before the UCC, but  the uncertainty around the time 
frames  was  sometimes  a  burden  on  traders).With  the  harmonised  new  rules  on 
guarantees,  there  is  less  room  for  interpretation  and  possible  divergences,  fewer 
exceptions, and more uniformity across Member States. Through the introduction of 
more detailed and specific rules on temporary storage, the UCC has increased legal 
certainty  and  predictability  for  economic  operators,  who  can  now  expect  the  same 
treatment regardless of the Member State in which they operate. Regarding customs 
simplifications, the UCC has clarified the application of certain simplifications, such 
as the use of simplified declarations and EIDR, reducing divergence between Member 

39 Economisti Associati (2021), page 86. 
40 C-496/17, Deutsche Post AG vs Hauptzollamt Köln. 
41 The Guidelines on Authorised Economic Operators are available on the website of DG TAXUD. 

30 

 
                                                           
States  to  a  certain  extent.  The  amended  rules  on  EIDR  increased  harmonisation, 
providing an advantage to businesses operating in multiple Member States. 

3)  indirectly, via the process of the intense deliberations and discussions about the UCC 
involving  the  Commission  and  Member  States  in  various  fora,  during  which  many 
uncertainties were addressed and resolved.  

Two  factors  explain  why  the  UCC  has  not  increased  the  legal  certainty  in  other  areas. 
Firstly, some rules or elements were unclear. Several economic operators reported a lack 
of  clarity,  ambiguity  and/or  discrepancies  in  the  way  the  criteria  for  reductions  and 
waivers  of  guarantees  are  assessed,  reference  amounts  monitored,  and  release  of 
guarantees  handled,  which  could  have  serious  financial  implications  for  traders,  in 
particular  for  warehouse  or  temporary  storage  facility  operators.  Moreover,  several 
Member  States  and  some  economic  operators  underlined  that,  despite  the  UCC’s 
harmonisation efforts, different approaches remained in the EU in relation to monitoring 
and  audits  for  AEOs. Such  divergences  were  also  identified  by  the  ECA  in  its  recent 
reports  on  import  procedures  and  e-commerce,  which  found  that  the  AEO  monitoring 
practices  in  some  Member  States  may  imperil  the  protection  of  the  EU’s  financial 
interests.42   This problem was also highlighted in the F4F opinion. In the field of customs 
simplifications, the lack of clarity regarding self-assessment and the uncertainty around 
its application in practice has meant that this simplification has not been used in a single 
Member  State  to  date,  creating  confusion  and  perplexity.43  Reportedly,  while  the  UCC 
defined self-assessment quite flexibly, allowing operators to perform controls, the sectoral 
legislation would need to provide a legal basis for traders to perform such controls under 
customs  supervision.  This  concern  was  also  highlighted  in  the  F4F  Platform  opinion, 
which  advised  the  development  of  a  comprehensive  concept  of  self-assessment  as  a 
simplification with clear and visible advantages for operators.  

A different  consideration applies in the area of  customs  risk management: the related 
strategy, action plan and other common actions taken in the years 2016-2020, such as new 
common risk criteria being introduced in several fields or the possibility to define priority 
control areas and the sharing of risk information through risk information forms (RIFs), 
increased legal certainty to a certain extent. Nevertheless, as the UCC continues to afford 
the  Member  States  considerable  discretion  in  how  they  apply  the  provisions  on  risk 
management and controls, the evaluation found that there is no uniform application.   

Secondly, the gradual deployment process for some IT systems and the delays with the full 
implementation of the harmonised data requirements led to an element of non-uniformity 
and lack of clarity across the Member States. Even if the harmonised data requirements 
and the new structure of the Annexes B leave very little room for legal uncertainty, the 
main  factor  that  affected  legal  certainty  according  to  customs  officials  and  operators 
consulted are the frequent changes to Annexes B, due to the need to align the common data 

42 Special report No 19/2017: Import procedures: shortcomings in the legal framework and an ineffective 
implementation impact the financial interests of the EU; Special Report no 12/2019: E-commerce: many 
of the challenges of collecting VAT and customs duties remain to be resolved. 

43 Economisti Associati (2021), page 63. 

31 

 
                                                           
requirements to the progressive deployment of the UCC IT systems, while solving other 
technical problems. This led to a lack of uniformity and predictability in the short term but 
problems  were  solved  with  the  revamped  Annexes  B  published  in  March  2021.44  The 
constant addition of new requirements in the rolling-out of IT systems has been pointed 
out in the F4F Platform opinion as a source of additional burden in terms of financial and 
human resources, disrupting the implementation as planned.   

In addition, to solve problems which emerged after the entry into force and to deal with 
new initiatives, eight amendments to the delegated and implementing acts, and changes to 
the timetable for the deployment of the IT systems were necessary between 2014 and 2020 
(see Annex VI for more details about the content of the above-mentioned amendments). 
These changes had a negative impact on legal certainty during the transition period.  

The  Commission  also  issued  guidance  documents  to  clarify  most  of  the  controversial 
issues and to ensure more harmonised practices in the Member States. Those actions were 
carried  out  within  the  framework  of  the  customs  expert  group  and  Customs  2020  joint 
actions. Such guidance is considered by both Member States and trade representatives 
as very helpful in enhancing uniformity and legal certainty, despite their non-binding 
nature. |However, in a few specific areas, the interpretation and application of the UCC 
provisions has not yet entirely stabilised and further guidance might be needed.45  

Overall, the evaluation found that, insofar as important sets of rules such as those on risk 
management, prohibitions and restrictions and – to a certain extent – the harmonised data 
requirements are not applied uniformly, there appears to be a problem of legal certainty 
that could not be rectified exclusively by the e.g. increased clarity/certainty of the customs 
decisions rules, where the most progress has been achieved. The non-uniform application 
in certain areas, on the other hand, is as a result of unclear rules and the resulting level of 
discretion left to Member States in their implementation.   

There might  have been costs related to  repetition of processes that were not  completed 
correctly due to a lack of clarity (additional investment of time to seek to clarify questions 
or reconcile apparently contradictory information, or invest financial and human resources 
in court cases to have differences of interpretation adjudicated) but these are difficult to 
quantify. The clarified AEO criteria and conditions were not associated with any tangible 
benefits  for  stakeholders.  Instead,  customs  authorities  and  economic  operators  were 
confronted with non-negligible one-off costs during the implementation phase mainly for 
the  reassessment  of  AEO  authorisations,  training  and  adaptation  of  internal  processes. 
Example of costs range from EUR 8,000 reported by one economic operator for training 

44 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/234 of 7 December 2020 amending Delegated Regulation 
(EU) 2015/2446 as regards common data  requirements, and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/341 as 
regards the codes to be used in certain forms (OJ L 63, 23.2.2021, p. 1). Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2021/235 of 8 February 2021 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 as 
regards formats and codes of common data requirements, certain rules on surveillance and the competent 
customs office for placing goods under a customs procedure (OJ L 63, 23.2.2021, p. 386). 

45 For example, the rules for customs valuation, the definition of an exporter (with the need to  potentially 
align the definition of exporter in the context of export of dual-use goods), and multiple filings in the 
context of the formalities related to the entry of goods. 

32 

 
                                                           
staff  on  the  AEO  requirements  to  EUR100,000  reported  by  another  for  upgrading  the 
system used for self-monitoring its AEO status. 

When it came to clarifying rules and criteria, the UCC facilitated a more consistent and 
harmonised  interpretation  and  application  across  the  EU  with  tangible  benefits  for 
stakeholders: customs officials that were consulted stated that they need to invest less time 
in figuring out how to apply certain rules, are subject to a reduced risk of legal challenge 
and litigation, and find it  easier to  exchange information with  or deal  with applications 
from other Member States. Economic operators (especially those that are active in several 
Member  States)  also  confirmed  that  they  achieved  savings  from  the  increased  use  of 
standardised processes and data, and can make better informed decisions, because there 
are  fewer  divergent  practices  in  different  Member  States  to  get  their  heads  round 
potentially helping organise their dealings with customs more efficiently. At the same time, 
the transition from the CCC to the UCC legal and IT framework has reportedly generated 
(and to some extent still generates) uncertainties and a non-uniform application of the new 
rules and requirements, which has had the exact opposite effect on stakeholders consulted 
in this evaluation. 

Objective to create a paperless customs environment 

By requiring that “all exchanges of information […] shall be made using electronic data-
processing  techniques”  (Article  6(1)  UCC),  the  UCC  prioritises  the  digitalisation  of 
customs processes based on interoperable systems for the actors involved as the main 
tool to achieve its objectives. The shift to paperless customs was for Member States the 
most  important  feature  of  the  UCC  (Figure  4)  and  the  biggest  challenge  in  its 
implementation,  because  of  the  complexity  of  the  activities  involved:  developing 
harmonised data requirements that could serve as a ‘common language’ for interoperable 
systems and data sharing, making the IT changes needed to implement those requirements 
and ensure interoperability via major upgrades to existing systems and the development 
and implementation of new IT systems to digitalise processes that were previously paper-
based  or  analogue.  As  previously  mentioned,  for  customs  authorities  and  economic 
operators the effort needed to implement the harmonised data requirements, especially by 
making them mandatory also for national import systems, that were previously under the 
control of national authorities, and compliant with the UCC requirements, coupled with 
delays to the deployment of many trans-European IT systems meant that they have only 
been implemented to a very limited extent.  Stakeholders agreed that the requirements will 
eventually make an important contribution to the objective of the paperless environment, 
but that this will come later in the implementation process. 

The  timeframe  for  realising  the  necessary  IT  developments  was  always  ambitious  and 
proved impossible to achieve, as described in section 2.1. Eight systems were completed 
by 2020, with those that have not yet been deployed including those which are expected to 
make  the  biggest  difference  to  the  digitalisation  of  customs,  such  as  UCC-compliant 
upgrades to national import and export systems, ICS2 and UCC CCI.  

Against  this  backdrop,  stakeholders  were  well  aware  of  the  original  ambition  and 
considered  that  the  UCC  has  nevertheless  facilitated  progress  towards  the  envisaged 

33 

 
paperless  customs  environment,  although  such  process  is  not  complete.  The  large 
majority of Member States (72%) feel that ‘some’ progress had been achieved, while for 
24%  of  Member  States  the  progress  was  ‘significant’  (Figure  4).  There  are  however 
nuances.  For  half  of  the  national  customs  officials  consulted,  satisfactory  progress  was 
made despite the immensely challenging nature of the tasks faced, but the other half  of 
customs authorities raised important  concerns related to uncertainty about the future as 
well  as  criticism  of  the  decisions  taken.46  Criticism  referred  to  practical  problems 
experienced, such as IT projects that had not proceeded according to original schedules 
and  first  releases  of  certain  IT  systems  (e.g.  CDS)  that  were  not  able  to  execute  the 
expected  business  processes,  but  also  to  the  frustration  stemming  from  the  frequent 
amendments  and  changes  to  technical  specifications  of  several  IT  projects.  A  factor  of 
concern for some Member States is the uncertainty regarding whether all Member States 
would  enact  the  changes  necessary  to  make  the  paperless  and  interoperable  customs 
environment  a  reality,  since  some  tend  to  prioritise  national  projects,  at  the  potential 
detriment  of  uniformity  in  the  level  of  controls.47  An  important  finding  is  that  in  the 
Member States  where the  IT infrastructure was  previously less  advanced,  the UCC has 
prompted significant progress on all fronts, thanks to the digitalisation and resulting factual 
and procedural improvements. In evaluating the trans-European central systems delivered 
to date by the Commission (including REX, CDS and EBTI), the external study concluded 
that they have generated tangible benefits, making clear that where developments can be 
centralised, there is significant added value in these as described in section 4.3. Some 
progress  towards  paperless  customs  was  achieved  also  in  the  area  of  simplifications, 
insofar as it encouraged some Member States to implement the UCC principle of electronic 
customs  declarations,  including  when  linked  with  a  simplification,  although  these  were 
already used in other Member States. In the Member States where a similar measure was 
not already in place, the simplification of EIDR also increased digitalisation, although it is 
not widely implemented in all Member States. 

The Customs Decision System (CDS) did not exist before the UCC and for the first time 
allows economic operators to process 22 types of customs decisions allowing automatic 
data validation. It is widely recognised as a step-change compared to the old Community 
Customs Code, even if some Member States allow the continued existence of both a central 
EU  system  and  national  systems,  which  means  that  economic  operators  working  in 
multiple  Member  States  still  need  to  deal  with  different  national  portals.  However,  the 
automatic validation of authorisations from CDS into the national clearance systems is a 
totally new and important feature for the functioning of national import systems, because 
authorisations are now valid across the EU. According to the study, greater impacts could 
be  achieved  if  the  scope  of  CDS  were  to  be  increased  beyond  the  current  22  types  of 
authorisations,  which  is  possible  in  principle.  However,  the  graph  below  illustrates  the 
cumulative number of applications submitted and decisions taken on a monthly basis from 
October 2017, the date of commencement of this IT system, to December 2020, showing 
that the system is increasingly being used. The more than 20,000 decisions taken have a 

46 Economisti Associati (2021), page 64. 
47 Ibidem. 

34 

 
                                                           
Union-wide validity and therefore contribute to a consistent and predictable application of 
Union law.  

Applications and Decisions in CDS

40000
30000
20000
10000
0

Total number of submitted applications

Total number of decisions

The  EOS/AEO  system  digitalised  and  streamlined  the  process  for  dealing  with  AEO 
applications, even if there are some national differences depending on whether individual 
Member States provide access to the system via the EU Trader Portal or national portals. 
It is also important to point out that the process is not entirely digital, as paper documents 
and correspondence were also required for some aspects of the application process in some 
Member States. 

The Registered Exporter system (REX) provides a Union-valid database of exporters in 
third  countries  (beneficiary  countries  of  the  GSP,  Overseas  Countries  and  Territories, 
partner countries in some preferential agreements) that are entitled to declare the origin of 
the  goods  they  produce  or  trade.  Importers,  freight-forwarders,  customs  brokers  or  any 
other operator in  the Union can therefore check  therein  that their foreign counterpart is 
effectively entitled to declare the origin of its goods. This assurance significantly reduces 
the risk for the Union operator importing the goods, as the origin of the goods is one of the 
factors used to calculate the duties and assess non-financial risks inherent in some products. 
REX therefore provides legal certainty to the economic operators. 

The REX system also provides a database of registered exporters established in the Union, 
who are entitled to declare the origin of the goods exported to partner countries of some 
preferential  agreements,  with  the  benefit  of  having  a  centralized  database  of  registered 
exporters and a common registration procedure in the Union that did not exist before. The 
graph below shows the registrations over time from 2017 to 2020 both for the Union and 
for third countries and therefore the growing success of the system. In total, at the end of 
2020 more than 100,000 operators have registered to provide valid proofs of origin.48 This 
system  facilitates  the  procedure  for  certification  of  origin  because  the  registration 
procedure is much simpler and faster (few days instead of several months) than it was for 
obtaining the status of approved exporter, the predecessor of REX. To certify the origin of 
goods,  there  is  no  intervention  needed  by  the  competent  authorities,  as  exporters 
themselves declare the origin, free of any charges. In some beneficiary countries, such as 
the  third  countries  benefitting  from  the  Generalised  System  of  Preferences,  this  is  a 

48 In January 2022, the registered exporter are 75299 for the EU, 64253 for GSP beneficiary countries and 

360 for EU partner countries (Switzerland, Norway, Turkey). 

35 

 
 
                                                           
significant simplification, as it can save time and costs (in certain countries, exporters are 
charged to obtain a certificate of origin). The REX system facilitates business operations 
also because the status of the exporter (validity of its registration) is visible for the importer 
using the proof of origin. This is thanks to the central database of registered exporters, used 
by the importers, but also by the competent authorities to perform appropriate controls. 

Figure 7: Evolution of registrations in the REX system 

EBTI provides a central database for BTI applications, effectively digitalising the process 
in a harmonised way and allowing customs authorities to verify the decisions on binding 
tariff information made by the Member States. It reduces the time for issuing decisions and 
avoids duplications or errors. EBTI ensures the Union-wide validity of the BTIs as well as 
their binding character, for 3 years throughout the EU, regardless of where they are issued. 
They  are  binding  on  all  EU  customs  administrations  and  the  BTI  holder.  It  replaced  a 
paper-based process. According to stakeholders, the system is helpful in guaranteeing full 
compliance  with  relevant  UCC  provisions  and  ensuring  a  harmonised  approach.  EBTI 
provides economic operators with legal certainty when calculating the price of import or 
export transactions and secures a uniform application of the Common Customs Tariff, in 
line  with  the  objectives  of  the  UCC  to  achieve  more  simplicity  and  uniformity  in  the 
application of customs rules. 

SURV3 allows the Commission to collect data from the electronic declarations lodged in 
the  Member  States.  SURV3  exploits  the  digitalisation  in  order  to  improve  the 
Commission’s surveillance capacity by providing relevant information on import/export 
flows. SURV3 is very valuable for the Commission because it provides essential data for 
monitoring the functioning of the customs union.  

Among  the  one-off  costs  incurred  by  stakeholders  to  implement  the  UCC  rules  the  IT 
development  costs  are  the  most  significant.  These  include  the  definition  of  the  IT 
specifications  by  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States,  the  development  (often  in 
collaboration  with  external  contractors),  testing  and  deployment  of  the  various  UCC 

36 

 
 
systems.  Many  economic  operators  have  their  own  IT  infrastructure  and  interfaces  for 
customs, and so also incur IT development costs as they adapt their own systems to be 
interoperable with the new / updated EU and national systems and data requirements. At 
EU  level,  according  to  the  final  evaluation  of  Customs  2020,  IT  costs  account  for  a 
significant share of the programme budget: the cost for the development (not including 
operation) of IT systems that are included in the UCC Work Programme amounted to a 
little  over  EUR  50  million  over  the  seven-year  period  covered  by  the  programme.  In 
particular, the one-off  development  costs went  from  EUR  2.6 million for REX to  EUR 
14.1  million  for  CDS,  as  detailed  below.49  At  national  level,  costs  reportedly  vary 
significantly from system to system, and from country to country, but frequently amount 
to several million euros per Member State for the most significant systems (such as the 
updated national import systems, which are not covered by this evaluation). In anecdotal 
evidence regarding the CDS, one Member State reported costs in ensuring compatibility 
of CDS with the national IT decisions system amounting to nearly EUR 350, 000 and over 
11,000 hours of work. Economic operators reported the transition to EBTI had minor cost 
implications for them. Table 5 indicates the costs for the development of the systems by 
the Commission.  

Table 5: Member States costs for the development of CDS, EBTI, SURV3 and REX 

System 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

Total 

CDS 

eBTI 

SURV 

REX 

€17 313  €158 152  €569 631  €1 281 853 

€2 191 375 

€691 885  €4 910 209 

€7 449 
€194 

€44 759 
€24 

€39 476 
€70 448 

€50 942 
€39 310 

€ 0.705 

€1.915 

€2.110 

€60 726 
€1 738 

€ 0.657 

€102 225 
€4 349 

€305 577 
€116 063 

€ 0.327 

€ 0.088 

in mill. 
Source: Commission e-customs progress reports (N=between 24 and 28 Member States) 

Table 6: Costs to the Commission for REX, EBTI and SURV3 

IT System 

REX 

EBTI 

SURV3 

Costs in millions of Euros 

One-off Development Costs 

Annual Maintenance Costs (Estimate) 

€ 2.60 

€ 3.35 

€ 6.99 

€ 0.52 

€ 0.67 

€ 1.40 

Beyond  the  development  costs,  the  cost  of  training  and  awareness  raising  for  customs 
officials and/or traders on the new systems was described as negligible by all but one of 
the customs administrations that provided information (the latter indicated a cost of EUR 
1400 just for workshops for informing traders on the new CDS) . In a similar vein, some 
economic  operators  reported  that  the  process  of  applying  for  decisions  has  become 
significantly faster as a result of the new rules and the CDS, but also that they had incurred 
one-off costs related to having to upgrade internal IT systems. 

49 A detailed assessment of the cost of a selection of centralised IT systems (CDS, AEO, EBTI, SURV3 and 

REX) is provided in Annex 5 of the study by Economisti Associati. 

37 

 
 
 
                                                           
In  spite  of  the  structured  change  management  mechanism  that  was  put  in  place  by  the 
Commission  in  order  to  cope  with  the  UCC’s  complex  multi-dimensional  IT 
implementation,  national  customs  administrations  still  described  the  process  as  very 
challenging. The work on IT implementation frequently stretched both their financial and 
their human resources to the limit, especially where there were changes to the technical 
specifications  and/or  data  requirements  that  required  adaptations  at  the  national  level, 
frequently  at  rather  short  notice,  sometimes  forcing  developers  to  revisit  work  that  had 
already been done and start again (with obvious cost implications). 

As  for  the  benefits  of  an  electronic  customs  environment,  these  are  evident  for  the 
stakeholders  consulted:  the  electronic  exchange  and  storage  of  customs  information 
reduces the need for economic operators to provide same data several times and improves 
risk  analysis,  which  allows  for  better-targeted  controls  and  speedier  treatment  for 
legitimate  compliant  traders.  The  progress  accomplished  to  date  already  has  tangible 
benefits  for  these  stakeholders.  The  digitalisation  and  harmonisation  of  processes  via 
centralised  or  interoperable  national  systems  can  lead  to  time  savings  for  the  customs 
officials  interviewed,  since  access  to  and  exchange  of  relevant  data  is  facilitated,  and 
economic operators consulted, in so far as access to only one central, rather than several 
national  systems  is  required,  can  increase  certainty  and  predictability  (since  more 
information is accessible online), and ultimately result in faster customs processes. As for 
specific benefits resulting from the digitalisation of the customs processes: 

  For  CDS,  three  customs  administrations  reported  savings  in  relation  to  processing 
times and the tracking of time limits (one interviewee described the savings resulting 
from the introduction of streamlined procedures as “huge”), and two Member States 
indicated reductions in the time taken to consult other Member States in case of multi-
country decisions (which frees up resources for other activities). 

  The EOs/AEO system has proved to be very beneficial for customs authorities, who 
frequently need to process and check the status of operators, while it is more of a minor 
benefit for businesses, for whom making an AEO application is not a regular action. 

  For REX and EBTI, the savings are very difficult to quantify, as they relate mainly to 
the fact that most Member States no longer need to develop and maintain their own 
national  systems  but  can  instead  directly  access  the  centralised  EU  databases.  This 
brings reduced time for verification and ensures increased harmonisation and certainty 
for economic operators. Additionally, some savings result from the transition from a 
paper-based to an electronic system, although this also reduces the ability to correct 
errors without restarting the application process. 

As the harmonised data requirements are an enabler of digitalisation and interoperability 
as opposed to a legal provision or an IT application as such, it is not possible to quantify 
their benefits or costs  per se. The main costs are related to the development of the IT 
systems, where the frequent changes to Annexes B appear to have increased the costs for 
some stakeholders at least.50 The benefits will only materialise to a significant extent once 

50 Economisti Associati (2021), page 83. 

38 

 
                                                           
Annex B is applied fully and consistently across the EU. In general, the benefits and costs 
of the harmonised data requirements as such cannot be separated from those related to the 
IT systems. 

Overall,  while  very  substantial  transition  costs  have  already  been  and  are  still  being 
incurred,  many  of  the  most  significant  expected  benefits  (e.g.  better  risk  management 
thanks to ICS2, or reduced burdens for traders thanks to Centralised Clearance at Import) 
have yet to materialise. Therefore, it is impossible to conclude on the UCC’s benefit-cost 
ratio since it depends primarily on the course of action in the coming years. According to 
the  information  collected  and  the  stakeholders,  opinions  and  the  study  findings,  the 
expectation is that the benefits will ultimately justify the costs.51 

Contribution to the general mission of customs 

Through its specific objectives described above, the UCC was expected to contribute to 
the  general  mission  of  customs  (protect  the  financial  interests  of  the  Union  and  its 
Member States, protect the Union from unfair and illegal trade, ensuring the safety  and 
security of the EU residents, and the protection of the environment, in close coordination 
with other authorities), while maintaining a proper balance between customs controls and 
facilitation of legitimate trade. 

A large majority of Member States (around 90%) considered in the questionnaires that the 
UCC did not bring significant progress in how well equipped the EU and Member States 
are for achieving the mission of customs. Only three Member States felt that they and 
the EU were ‘much better equipped’ to achieve their mission. However, this is attributed 
by customs authorities to the fact that the most important changes depended on IT systems 
that are not yet operational while being absolutely necessary for dealing, for example, with 
the  challenges  of  e-commerce,  which  has  become  an  urgent  issue.  As  a  result,  only 
incremental  benefits  could  have  been  expected  at  this  stage  of  implementation. 
Relatedly,  few  respondents  in  the  public  consultation  identified  significant  progress  in 
achieving the general  objectives  (around 10%), while the majority noted some or ‘very 
little progress (57% to 60%). A significant number of respondents (15% to 25%) did not 
know,  showing  perhaps  the  difficulty  for  individual  businesses  of  making  judgements 
about the high-level achievements of the Customs Union.52 

As to what extent the UCC implementation to date contributed to the achievement of the 
mission of customs, the following can be said based on the findings of this evaluation on 
the UCC implementation:  

  As regards the protection of EU financial interests. In terms of the initiatives pursued, 
the  changes  to  the  rules  on  guarantees  and  the  establishment  and  application  of 
financial risk criteria (FRC) appear to have had an immediate, direct impact on efforts 
towards the proper collection of customs duties and the detection of customs fraud, 
with the EU able to hold Member States liable for identified lost revenue. In the case 
of  e-commerce53,  where  substantial  new  requirements  were  introduced,  namely  the 

51 Economisti Associati (2021), page 94. 
52 Public consultation, Annex V of this SWD. 
53 Economisti Associati (2021), Annex 4.1 on e-commerce. 

39 

 
                                                           
need to submit customs declarations for goods worth not more than EUR 150, the goal 
is tackling under-valuation and VAT fraud, and to level the playing field for EU traders.  
Despite this, in terms of actual results of controls activities, Commission experience 
and  findings  from  a  2021  European  Court  of  Auditors  report  on  customs  controls54 
highlighted that a sufficient level of harmonised controls has not yet been attained and 
Member States act in different ways, in particular in implementing the new customs 
financial  risk  framework,  whose  provisions  are  not  sufficiently  detailed  to  ensure 
uniformity.  In addition,  data on amounts of unpaid  duties (see section 3), on illegal 
goods seized, and amounts of undetected customs duties have been roughly stable since 
2016, implying that the levels of control have not changed much.  

  As regards the protection of the safety and security of the citizens, the deployment 
of  the  system  ICS255  and  the  adoption  of  the  new  risk  management  framework  are 
expected to contribute to the objectives of protecting financial interests and ensuring 
safety and security56. However, the UCC in general does not include specific treatment 
of  goods  subject  to  prohibitions  and  restrictions.  To  achieve  further  simplification, 
extensive  coordination  with  other  competent  authorities  would  be  necessary  in  this 
respect, which was lacking during the UCC negotiations57. Both customs authorities 
and  economic  operators  demanded  flexibility  at  the  beginning  of  the  COVID-19 
pandemic, such as a temporary reduction in controls or waiving of certain rules with 
strict temporary limits. However, that is not possible under the UCC. This was echoed 
by the F4F Platform opinion, which suggested that more flexibility in the application 
of  rules  and  exceptions  based  on  force  majeure  should  be  considered  to  ensure  a 
uniform  and efficient  response across the EU in case of future crisis,  as opposed to 
burdensome and possibly divergent case-by-case solutions.  

  No specific contribution came from the UCC changes analysed in this evaluation in 
relation to the objective of facilitating legitimate trade. Economic operators regularly 
complain and confirmed in the questionnaires, interviews and public consultation that 
major  innovations,  such  as  centralised  clearance,  have  not  yet  been  implemented 
because they rely on IT projects that are still ongoing; other simplifications described 
earlier, such as self-assessment, are not in use because of legal uncertainty about their 
application in practice. On a more positive note, specific changes nevertheless resulted 

54  European  Court  of  Auditors,  Special  Report  04/2021:  Customs  controls:  insufficient  harmonisation 

hampers EU financial interests, 30/03/2021, page 35. 

55  ICS2  is  deployed  gradually,  in  three  releases  depending  on  the  mode  of  transport  of  the  consignment. 
Release 1 for postal and express consignments is operational from 15 March 2021. Release 2 for all air 
cargo movements will follow as of March 2023 and the deployment of ICS2 will be completed in 2024 
covering all modes of transport. 
56 ICS2 will collect security and safety data about all goods entering the EU prior to their arrival. Such 
advance cargo information and risk analysis will enable early identification of high-risk consignments 
and other security threats and help customs authorities to intervene at the most appropriate point in the 
supply chain.By increasing the structured approach to customs risk management, the new customs risk 
management strategy will make controls more effective and reduce financial and non-financial risks to 
the EU and its citizens, whilst ensuring competitiveness of legitimate EU business. It will aim at allowing 
customs to act, react and be seen as one. 

57 Economisti Associati (2021), Annex 4.2 on non-financial risks. 

40 

 
                                                           
in incremental benefits for traders, such as the new provisions on customs decisions, 
the systems EBTI and REX, and the simplification of EIDR.  

4.2.2 Coherence 

In  assessing  the  coherence  of  the  UCC  implementation,  the  evaluation  focused  on  the 
consistency and complementarity between the UCC and EU policies and legislation 
in other areas that are applied at EU borders, in terms of the compatibility of intended 
aims  as  well  as  practical  coordination  and  synergies,  or,  conversely,  examples  of 
duplication or missed opportunities (external coherence). Since customs and other policies 
require information from economic operators, this should be handled in the most efficient 
way possible ideally with procedural coordination, data-sharing and interoperable systems 
between authorities. In addition, the choice to analyse external coherence from a practical 
angle is aligned with the Customs Action Plan, which foresees a number of actions aimed 
at  improving and increasing both  harmonisation between customs authorities in  the EU 
and  collaboration  across  policy  areas  over  the  coming  years.  For  these  reasons,  also 
considering the already large scope of the evaluation and the need to prioritise the analysis 
on implementation, internal coherence, which concerns how the different parts of the UCC 
relate to each other, is not part of the analysis that follows. 

From  the  perspective  of  coherence,  the  objectives  of  ensuring  safety  and  security  and 
protecting  the  financial  interests  of  the  EU  and  Member  States  aligned  well  with  the 
objectives of a number of relevant EU policies and legislation that regulate goods. These 
include some 300 EU legal acts on prohibitions and restrictions58 that may be imposed on 
imports, exports or goods in transit when they are justified on a limited number of grounds, 
but also policies on climate change, environmental protection and  diversity, intellectual 
property rights, product safety, dual use goods, and the protection of human and animal 
health.  In  these  cases,  and  especially  in  light  of  the  digitalisation  of  customs  processes 
mandated by the UCC, the objectives pursued by non-customs legislation are considered 
consistent with the UCC objective to keep Europe safe and secure. However, to avoid those 
constituting additional barriers to, rather than facilitating, trade, coordination mechanisms 
appear to be essential to ensure the achievement of the different objectives at stake. In this 
respect,  the  biggest  concern  among  stakeholders  was  about  a  lack  of  such  practical 
coordination on the ground between customs and non-customs authorities. 

A good example of the tension is the EU Single Window environment for customs59, 
aimed  at  smoothing  clearance  for  certain  goods  that  are  subject  to  prohibitions  and 
restrictions  by  facilitating  the  exchange  of  information  on  non-customs  regulatory 
requirements  between  competent  authorities.  Although  very  much  in  favour  of  the 
initiative,  customs  authorities  consulted  for  this  evaluation  found  it  regrettable  that  the 

58 See, for information, the Integrated EU prohibitions & restrictions list, published in Q1 2022, outside the 
temporal  scope  of  this  evaluation.  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Taxation  and 
Customs  Union, Integrated  EU  prohibitions  &  restrictions  list:  indicative  calendar  and  list  as  of 
1.1.2022 legal notice, 2022, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2778/163387.    

59 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Union 
Single Window Environment for Customs and amending Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, COM(2020) 
673 final. 

41 

 
                                                           
Single Window was not addressed in the UCC, which would have integrated the Single 
Window  into  the  broader  customs  framework  and  served  to  improve  coordination  of 
business  processes  and  digital  data  requirements  across  the  wide  range  of  non-customs 
policies covered by the initiative.  

Similar considerations apply to the rules on prohibitions and restrictions in the UCC. In 
this area, the limited competence  given to customs in Articles 134 and 267 UCC is not 
considered by customs authorities as problematic as such, but the fact that the specific rules 
are the responsibility of other authorities (European or national / regional) is considered as 
a source of problems when coordination is missing. The necessary coordination to ensure 
that  prohibitions  and  restrictions  are  enforced  consistently  (e.g.  in  terms  of  data 
requirements, document formats, digitalisation, the timing and arrangements for carrying 
out  controls,  etc.)  between  customs  and  the  competent  authorities  and  the  competent 
authorities  for  the  sectoral  legislation  (such  as  market  surveillance,  phytosanitary 
requirements etc.) is limited, as it is mainly organised only via consultation activities. For 
example,  in  principle,  the  drive  for  digitalisation  of  the  customs  environment  would 
facilitate  better  data  collection  and  sharing,  including  with  regard  to  prohibitions  and 
restrictions,  and  thereby  enhance  risk  analysis  for  controls  of  these  goods.  However, 
interviewees  doubted  this,  pointing  to  the  fact  that  the  UCC’s  harmonised  data 
requirements include no new elements that are directly relevant to the enforcement 
of prohibitions and restrictions. Similarly, a lack of interoperability, and residual paper 
documents required to  comply with  many policies, were seen to  act  as an  obstacle for 
further digitalisation of customs procedures and the implementation of simplifications. 

Relatedly,  coherence  with  relevant  policies  and  full  data  sharing  at  Union  level, 
particularly for anti-fraud purposes, would greatly benefit customs risk management 
at Union level, as well as a risk management and control framework dedicated to  non-
financial risks that takes into account the particular risks raised by  e-commerce. In that 
respect, in the opinion of Commission and customs officials interviewed,60 the simplified 
declaration  for low-value consignments (‘super-reduced’ data set  H7 declarations) does 
not  contain  enough  data  elements  to  conduct  a  proper  risk  analysis.  Similarly,  the  case 
study on prohibitions and restrictions found that lacking coordination and interoperability 
between the IT systems of customs and other competent authorities prevented relevant data 
from being shared and used for risk purposes.61 These problems were seen to be holding 
the UCC back from achieving its potential in this area.  

More positively, the deployment of the IT systems ICS2 is expected to enhance safety and 
security through better customs authorities’ access to high-quality data, leading to better 

60 Economisti Associati (2021), Annex 4.1 on e-commerce and 4.2 on non-financial risks. 
61 Additional synergies were indicated to potentially come from interoperability with IT systems for reporting 
on  risks,  CRMS  and  the  Anti-Fraud  Information  System  (AFIS),  and  regarding  product  safety  with 
RAPEX (the EU’s Rapid Exchange Information System used to exchange information on dangerous 
products), and the tools of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 

42 

 
                                                           
risk analysis. 62  The Commission is also in the process of developing common risk criteria 
for cash control63, and reflecting on common risk criteria for product safety and intellectual 
property  rights  protection.  These  initiatives  should  lead  to  further  contributions  to  the 
general objectives and coherence as implementation of the UCC continues.  

Another group of policies that should ideally be coherent with the UCC and vice versa, 
also highlighted in the F4F opinion, are those aimed at ensuring the proper collection of 
taxes like VAT and excise, such as the fight against tax fraud and smuggling, which are 
consistent with the UCC objective of protecting the financial interests of the EU and its 
Member States. This is however improving in the area of VAT, as shown in section 3 on 
implementation,  where  the  role  of  customs  authorities  in  enforcing  the  VAT  e-
commerce  package  is  very  essential.  The  application  of  these  rules  from  1  July  2021 
could  not  and cannot  happen without significant coordination between customs  and tax 
authorities, as facilitated by joint Customs / Fiscalis workshops, and joint participation in 
other relevant fora bringing together officials at the management and operational levels. 
The Commission also appointed a Single Point of Contact for e-commerce in each Member 
State, and prepared detailed guidance in collaboration with customs and tax authorities and 
the  trade  community.  Despite  these  efforts,  Member  States  face  serious  challenges  in 
organising  the  IT  and  physical  capacity  necessary  to  handle  the  dramatically  increased 
volume  of  declarations  and  related  controls  and  in  ensuring  the  necessary  coordination 
with  tax authorities.64  The fact  that  e-commerce is not  addressed explicitly in  the UCC 
further increases the challenges for customs. Although some rules in relation to the import 
of low value consignments  were  modified in  order  to  enable the implementation  of the 
VAT e-commerce package, the study highlighted that “the issues faced are of such a unique 
nature  and  scale  that  additional  action  –  and  resources  –  would  likely  be  needed.  The 
problems  mostly  came  from  a  perceived  inability  to  conduct  sufficient  and  effective 
controls  using  the  existing  framework.”65  Recognising  the  shortcomings  of  the  legal 
framework, the Customs Action Plan envisages a number of initiatives that on the one hand 
aim to enhance the cooperation and data sharing between customs and tax authorities, and, 
on the other hand, leverage the role and revisit the liabilities of e-commerce platforms. A 
general problem has emerged in light of the coordinated application of coherent policies 
concerning  the General  Data Protection Regulation66 and data-sharing between  customs 

62 According to the 2019 UCC Work Programme, the first release of ICS2 was deployed on 15 March 2021, 
while release 2 and analytics has a deployment window from Q1 to Q4 2023, and release 3 from Q1 to 
Q4 2024. 

63 COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION C(2022) 1801 of 24.3.2022 laying down measures for the 
uniform  application  of  controls  by  establishing  common  cash  movements  risk  criteria  and  standards 
pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1672 of the European Parliament and of the Council on controls on 
cash entering or leaving the Union” has been completed and sent to Member States customs authorities 
through their Permanent Representations. It is an EU restricted document, therefore it has no number in 
the Official Journal.   

64 Economisti Associati (2021), Annex 4.1 on e-commerce. 
65 Economisti Associati (2021), Annex 4.1 on e-commerce 
66  Regulation  (EU)  2016/679  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  April  2016  on  the 
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement 
of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) 

43 

 
                                                           
and other authorities, at  national and EU levels, because of uncertainty  around possible 
legal obstacles to sharing certain relevant data.  

As results from the preceding analysis, the issue of data availability, data quality and data 
use is crucial for an analysis of positive coherence concerning related policies applied at 
EU  borders.  In  this  respect,  the  evaluation  also  analysed  to  what  extent  the  lack  of 
accurate,  comparable  and  sufficiently  detailed  data  for  the  evaluation  of  the 
performance  of  customs  activities  has  had  an  impact  on  the  good  functioning  of  the 
Customs Union. In order to develop customs policy and legislation on robust evidence, the 
Commission  launched  the  Customs  Union  Performance  (CUP)  project  in  2014,  a 
framework for collecting, compiling and reporting on customs performance data collected 
at Member States level according to a standardised set of indicators.67 The information is 
included in  an annual  report destined to  the Commission  services and national  customs 
authorities.  

Since  the  CUP  does  not  have  a  legal  base  in  the  UCC,  the  voluntary  nature  of  the 
collection  of  CUP  data  causes  certain  deficiencies  for  the  process  and  raises  questions 
about data quality, completeness and consistency. In addition, there are issues regarding 
data  ownership  and  confidentiality  (the  Commission  compiles  and  analyses  the  data, 
property of the Member States, whose permission is necessary whenever the data is to be 
used) and stability of the voluntary arrangements, which are subject to the Member States’ 
willingness to provide the data or not. More comprehensive reporting obligations through 
a specific legal framework could improve benchmarking and eventually approximation of 
practices  between  different 
important  aggregated 
information contributing to analytical capabilities for specific areas like risk assessments 
but  also  improving  the  overall  possibility  to  evaluate  the  performance  of  the  Customs 
Union.  According  to  the  external  study,  the  problem  at  EU  level  seems  to  be  “the 
‘unofficial’  nature  of  the  CUP,  and  its  awkward  fit  alongside  the  exclusive  EU 
competence for the Customs Union. In practice, this means that the EU is responsible for 
the  body  of  customs  rules  and  processes,  which  generally  are  enshrined  in  legislation, 
while lacking the tools for oversight.”68 

jurisdictions,  while  providing 

However, very few national customs administrations perceived the lack of a legal base 
as an urgent problem, mainly considering the current arrangements reasonable in terms 
of usefulness of the information provided and efforts required for the data collection 
at  national  level.  In  addition,  at  the  High-Level  Seminar  on  the  Customs  Union 
Performance in Vienna in 2018, the Member States appeared divided on whether a legal 
base for the CUP would be desirable and acceptable.  

Thus,  the  evaluation  could  not  gather  enough  evidence  to  conclude  whether  the 
current voluntary framework is sufficient or not.  However, “the imbalance between 
the Commission’s responsibilities for implementation and lack of tools for oversight would 

67 The indicators cover five key areas, namely basic parameters (indicators such as numbers of declarations, 
customs  revenue,  staff,  etc.),  controls,  protection  (e.g.  seizures  of  various  kinds),  facilitation  (e.g. 
number of authorisations granted) and cooperation (e.g. agreements between various actors). 

68 Economisti Associati (2021), page 76. 

44 

 
                                                           
suggest that action is needed. Ideally, this would consider the problems identified at EU 
level  while  taking  into  account  competing  preferences  and  incentives  for  the  Member 
States”, by exploring for example “whether a performance-measurement system based on 
a limited number of indicators would be acceptable, and how to increase Member State 
buy-in by making the results of any data collection and analysis more useful for them.” 69 

4.3.  How  did  the  EU  intervention  make  a  difference?  [RELATED  CRITERION  TO 

ASSESS: EU ADDED VALUE] 

The European Union has exclusive competence in the area of customs because this is an 
essential component for the proper functioning of the internal market, which allows any 
business established in the EU to trade in goods and invest throughout the EU. Thanks to 
the  Customs  Union,  duties  on  goods  from  outside  the  EU  are  generally  paid  when  the 
goods  first  enter  the  EU  customs  territory,  then  goods  can  circulate  freely  within  the 
customs territory and customs authorities oversee imports and exports from and to third 
countries, acting as though they were one. It is the UCC that sets out the common set of 
rules applicable to these movements of goods, while Member States are responsible for its 
implementation;  a  high  level  of  uniformity  is  therefore  desirable  to  ensure  the  good 
functioning of the internal market. In other terms, if customs is an exclusive competence 
of  the  Union,  the  UCC  as  the  legislation  regulating  customs  processes  is  inherently 
necessary. Since such legislation has to be implemented by Member States, a detailed set 
of rules ensures that customs administrations can act as one and implement the rules in the 
same  way.  In  such  a  context,  a  proper  legal  framework  providing  the  necessary 
harmonisation  and  uniformity  has,  by  itself  added  value.  The  need  for  the  latter  was 
confirmed by some of the results of this evaluation as well. In most of the  areas where 
implementation  problems  were  identified  there  was  a  demand  from  both  customs 
authorities and economic operators for more clear, harmonised and uniform rules at Union 
level.  

In view of this, the analysis of the EU added value of the UCC should focus on the division 
of  labour  and  responsibility  between  the  EU  and  the  Member  States  as  regards  its 
implementation of the legal rules and of the IT package, and whether this is appropriate or 
could  be  improved.  The  assessment  also  includes  the  role  of  the  Customs  financial 
programme’s  joint  actions  and  training  activities  in  contributing  to  the  correct  UCC 
implementation. 

The  findings  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  UCC  showed  that  the  UCC  has  clarified  and 
harmonised certain customs rules, and reduced room for interpretation and facilitates 
their  consistent,  uniform  application  across  the  EU.  This  is  particularly  true  for  the 
harmonised  rules  on  customs  decisions,  the  more  detailed  conditions  for  obtaining  the 
AEO status, the specific rules on temporary storage and the new guarantees regime. Such 
improved  uniformity  has  produced,  according  to  stakeholders,  tangible  effects,  for 

69 Ibidem. 

45 

 
                                                           
example the reduction of BTI shopping thanks to the clarification that BTI decisions are 
binding on both customs and traders, supported by the EBTI system.  

Nevertheless, the insufficient harmonisation and varied interpretation of rules continues to 
be  a  problem,  as  it  emerged  from  the  public  consultation  especially  from  the  side  of 
business operators. There are essentially four sources for the persistent lack of uniformity 
in the UCC implementation: 

1.  Partial implementation: in several cases, non-uniformity is due to the uneven pace of 
implementation  of  the  UCC  provisions.  The  harmonised  data  requirements  are  an 
obvious  example:  the  application  of  Annex  B  depends  on  the  deployment  of  IT 
systems,  and  both  the  technical  specifications  for  these  and  the  data  requirements 
themselves have been subject to changes over the last few years. As a result, depending 
on  the  schedule  of  their  IT  development,  different  Member  States  currently  apply 
different parts of Annex B. The revision of the Annexes B adopted in 2021 is meant to 
solve these issues and provide for a stable framework for the coming years. 

2.  Intended  optionality:  several  UCC  provisions  allow  customs  authorities to  act  in  a 
certain  way  if  they  so  wish  (so-called  “may  provisions”  as  opposed  to  the  “shall 
provisions”);  as  a  result,  it  may  happen  that  different  customs  administrations  take 
different approaches in the same area.  While this is strongly criticised by economic 
operators that have to  deal  with  customs  in  more than one Member State, for some 
customs administrations it is also important to have some flexibility to apply certain 
provisions in a way that reflects their national circumstances and priorities. In addition, 
due  to  the  opposition  of  a  minority  of  Member  States  to  fully  harmonise  the 
simplifications,  there  was  no  choice  at  the  time but  to  allow  at  least  those  Member 
States who wanted to proceed in that direction to do so. 

3.  Unintended lack of clarity: stakeholders identified areas where the UCC simply does 
not  provide  the  necessary  clarity.  Examples  include  the  provisions  regarding  AEO 
compliance with taxation rules, whose interpretation had to be settled by the European 
Court of Justice. In many cases, uncertainties were clarified via guidance documents,70 
which were widely described as helpful by stakeholders. The regular consultation of 
customs  authorities  and  economic  operators  by  the  Commission  has  permitted  a 
gradual solution to some of these problems, but due to the volume and complexity of 
the  legal  package  it  is  not  surprising  that  some  ambiguities  remain,  and  need  to  be 
solved. 

4.  Non-uniformity of national customs practices can also relate to aspects where Member 
States have traditionally had a high level of discretion, and where the UCC has not 
introduced new provisions or mechanisms. This is the case for AEO (the rules define 
the criteria and conditions for obtaining AEO status, but do not regulate how Member 
States should verify the compliance with these over time), customs risk management 
(while the UCC calls for a uniform level of control, the application of the Customs 
Risk Management Framework is determined at national level), and the enforcement of 

70 See UCC - Guidance documents (europa.eu). 

46 

 
                                                           
prohibitions and restrictions (the UCC provides the legal basis, but does not contain 
any provisions to regulate how customs are to enforce them).  

In  light  of  this,  it  can  be  said  that  the  UCC  has  not  provided  for  full  harmonisation  of 
customs processes. However, since some level of flexibility is deemed to be necessary by 
the actors called to apply the rules on a daily basis in an effective way, the UCC was called 
upon to strike a balance. 

Regarding the implementation of the IT systems, the question on the EU added value can 
be considered through the lens of the type of approach chosen by the Member States for 
completing the different IT projects. The general view of the stakeholders (especially of 
the  businesses)  consulted  in  the  context  of  the  external  study  for  achieving  the  full 
harmonisation of customs procedures and processes would be to rely entirely on common, 
centralised trans-European IT systems  and to avoid the decentralised approach, which 
is  not  seen  as  ideal,  mainly  for  its  complexity.  However,  as  national  customs  systems 
already existed before the UCC with significant investments from the Member States to 
cover their needs, the starting point for developing the IT systems has not always allowed 
the choice of the centralised approach: the transition costs would have been too high while 
the common solutions would not meet all needs and requirements as well as the existing 
national ones. 

Similarly  to  the  implementation  of  the  legal  provisions,  if  full  centralisation  would  be 
optimal in theory, but is not achievable in practice, the question is about the effective and 
efficient implementation of the decentralised approach.  

As  regards  the  trans-European  central  systems  delivered  to  date  by  the  Commission 
(including REX, CDS and EBTI), the external study concluded that they have generated 
tangible  benefits,  making  clear  that  where  developments  can  be  centralised,  there  is 
significant added value in these, and the Commission can provide systems that are fit for 
purpose  and  ensure  full  compliance  with  the  UCC.  The  centralised  approach  not  only 
enables the full harmonisation of the requirements and processes, it is also more resource 
efficient  in  terms  of  development  and  operations  because  a  central  system  replaces  27 
individual IT solutions and is maintained centrally by the Commission. Consequently, it 
has a lower environmental footprint than a decentralised approach building on national IT 
systems. Moreover, it prevents the varied degree of implementation of IT systems between 
Member State avoiding diverse transitional  measures across the EU and saves costs for 
businesses that need to connect to a single system instead of developing 27 interfaces to 
interact  with  Member  States’  IT  systems.  CDS  is  an  interesting  case  study  in  both  EU 
added value and its limitations: after significant problems with the first release (which was 
not  fully  aligned  with  the  relevant  delegated  and  implementing  provisions),  the  second 
release of the system in 2020 has been found to function well. However, its benefits appear 
much greater in those Member States that have chosen to use the central  system for all 
decisions. By contrast, in Member States that use the CDS only for ‘multi Member State’ 
decisions, and their national trader portal for ‘single Member State’ decisions, the benefits 
for traders are much more limited, as they result in having to use two different systems (the 
national  one for the majority of decisions, and the CDS  only  for the decisions that  can 
potentially be valid in several, or all, Member States.  

47 

 
Finally, the extent to which and how the joint actions and training activities funded via the 
Customs programme support the UCC implementation should be analysed. Customs 2020 
is the EU cooperation programme that enables national customs administrations to create 
and exchange information and expertise. It allows for the joint development and operation 
of major trans-European IT systems, as well as establishing networks by bringing together 
national officials from across Europe. Customs 2020 covered the period 2014-2020 with a 
budget  of  EUR 522.9 million.   Its  successor, Customs 2027, has a budget  of  EUR  950 
million for the period 2021-2027. 

The evaluation of the Customs 2020 programme provided by a separate study71 found for 
example that the programme’s main tools to support the effective implementation of Union 
law  (primarily  the  UCC)  were  the  IT  capacity  building  activities.  Joint  actions  also 
supported the effective implementation of Union law by ensuring the development of the 
IT  systems  was  in  line  with  Member  States’  needs  and  with  the  UCC.  The  human 
competency building activities provided courses on all major UCC systems deployed under 
the Customs 2020 programme, ensuring that stakeholders have access to training materials 
allowing them to operate the systems effectively. 

Many of the customs officials consulted as part of the UCC evaluation referred to  joint 
actions  funded  by  the  programme  as  being  very  important  and  useful  to  discuss 
challenges  with  the  interpretation  and  application  of  many  of  the  new  UCC 
provisions,  and  to  develop  joint  approaches  to  areas  that  gave  rise  to  uncertainties  or 
ambiguities. Positive experiences were in particular the project groups that contributed to 
the development of IT systems (e.g. on the revision of Annex B, in particular with regard 
to  national  import  systems),  the  production  of  guidance  documents  (e.g.  on  customs 
formalities and on the e-commerce low value consignments), the development and fine-
tuning of the legislation around customs decisions and of the CDS, the development of 
extensive  guidance  documents  on  AEO  (monitoring  of  authorisations,  professional 
qualifications). 

The detailed analysis of the eight UCC ‘key issues’ provides strong evidence to suggest 
that the joint actions funded via the Customs programme have supported the UCC 
implementation,  in  particular  as  regards  the  second  (strengthening  legal  certainty  and 
predictability) and third specific objectives (facilitating progress towards the digitalisation 
of customs).  

4.4. 

Is the UCC still relevant? 

The  evaluation  looked  at  whether  the  UCC  package  is  still  relevant  in  respect  of  the 
evolving  needs  of  the  key  stakeholders  and  the  extent  to  which  those  needs  are  still 
reflected in the UCC’s general and specific objectives.  

According  to  the  results  of  the  public  consultation,  the  most  important  needs  of 
respondents  regarding  EU  customs  rules  and  processes  are  (1) more  uniform  customs 
rules; (2) clearer, more predictable customs rules and processes; (3) simpler customs 

71 [Reference of the C2020 evaluation study, once finalised] 

48 

 
                                                           
processes  and  procedures  and  (4)  better  exchange  of  information.  Faster  customs 
processes and better adaptation to new developments and circumstances, were also found 
to be very important by more than half of respondents. It is important to note that the large 
majority  (73%)  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  were  companies  or  business 
associations. Needs of the other categories of respondents (including citizens, NGOs, and 
public authorities) were very similar to  those of business  respondents  but  include other 
priorities, such as more effective tools to tackle smuggling and fraud and more resources 
for customs. The consultation activities did not provide strong indications that there are 
any significant needs that would fall outside the scope of the UCC’s objectives. 

Figure  8:  As  of  today,  what  are  your  (or  your  organisation’s)  most  important  needs  and 
priorities regarding EU customs rules and processes? 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

More uniform customs rules

Clearer, more predictable customs rules and processes

Simpler customs processes and procedures

Faster customs processes and procedures

More effective exchange of information between
national customs administrations and economic…
Better adaptation of customs rules and processes to
new global, commercial or socio-economic…

Greater stability of customs rules (to limit adaptation
costs)

More effective tools to tackle smuggling, illicit or
fraudulent trade

Better enforcement of EU safety, health and
environmental rules at the external border
More financial and/or human resources to enable
customs authorities to do their job

Other (please specify)

75%

67%

67%

63%

62%

58%

46%

42%

37%

34%

39%

13%

9%

19%

6%

6%

13%

6%

4%

7%

21%

5%

7%

23%

11%

24%

8%

6%

26%

15%

10%

27%

25%

28%

34%

26%

6%

14%

7%

9%

57%

Very important

Quite important

Somewhat important

Not very important

Not important at all

Don't know

Source: Public consultation - Interim evaluation of the Union Customs Code (UCC) (2021) - Base: 126 respondents 

For over half of respondents, all the needs listed were more important now than when 
the UCC was adopted in 2013, especially more uniformity in customs rules and processes 
across the EU, together with faster customs processes and procedures and simpler customs 
rules and procedures, which are two of the aspects that had become more important over 
time. Respondents also underlined the increased importance of the effective exchange of 
information between customs and economic operators. Hardly any respondents felt that 
any of the needs had become less important in the last eight years. 

As results from the findings of the evaluation regarding the effectiveness of the UCC, the 
needs  indicated  by  the  respondents  in  the  public  consultation,  and  confirmed  by  all 
stakeholders  in  the  targeted  consultation,  largely  correspond  to  the  goals  for  which  the 

49 

 
 
UCC was designed: uniformity, clarity and simplicity of rules and digitalisation for faster 
processes.  In  particular,  the  aspects  of  the  UCC  which  better  reflect,  on  one  hand,  the 
aforementioned  needs,  and  on  the  other  hand,  achieve  some  of  the  UCC’s  goals,  are 
reflected by the UCC innovations that effectively achieved some progress. As described in 
section 4.2.1, such progress relates in particular to the streamlining and harmonisation of 
customs  decisions,  of  guarantees  and  some  special  procedures,  but  also  the  creation  of 
centralised IT systems for the implementation of the provisions on origin, valuation and 
binding tariff information.  

For customs authorities, in addition to the needs and priorities listed above, an additional 
need  is  to  have  the  capacity  for  dealing  with  the  growing  number  of  customs 
declarations and procedures (as shown in figure 9 below). This is due to the longer-term 
trend of higher trade volumes, to Brexit and to the recent changes for small consignments, 
because customs declarations are now required for a vast number of e-commerce shipments 
arriving in the EU from third countries, which were exempted from this obligation under 
the old rules. This growing volume and the related increasing responsibilities of customs 
on  prohibitions  and  restrictions  reinforces  the  need  for  efficient  electronic  customs 
processes and systems. A similar, unmet need of customs authorities relates to the capacity 
for dealing with increased challenges relating to the “density” of EU initiatives, i.e. the 
need to implement the complex UCC legal and IT framework while also dealing with a 
series of other significant developments, whether anticipated (e.g. the VAT e-commerce 
package), or impossible to anticipate (e.g. Brexit, COVID-19 pandemic).  

Figure  9:  Workload  of  Customs  Union  concerning  customs  procedures  (EU28,  unless 
otherwise indicated) 

Units: for import and export, million items; for transit, million movements 
Source: European Commission, Customs Union Performance (CUP)  

For  the  economic  operators,  unmet  needs  stem  from  the  complex  IT  developments, 
including the transition to the new/updated IT systems, but also the frequent changes to the 
specifications and data requirements that were made between 2016 and 2020, which had 
been  costly  and  burdensome.  Such  changes  were  necessary  to  ensure  the  complex 
transition across all the domains and related systems at central, national and trade levels 
was  done  correctly  and  to  keep  the  framework  aligned  to  the  WCO  data  model.  The 

50 

 
 
resulting  delays  in  the  deployment  of  several  systems,  and  the  uneven  situation  that 
currently exists across the EU with regard to the operation of different systems and the 
applicable  data  requirements,  explains  to  some  extent  the  fact  that  most  economic 
operators believed that uniformity, simplicity, clarity and speed were even more important 
today than they were when the UCC was adopted. 

In  light  of  these  needs  and  priorities,  for  the  large  majority  of  representatives  of  both 
customs authorities and economic operators the  general  and  specific objectives  of the 
UCC were and continue to be highly relevant when put in relation with their needs.  

The  UCC’s  general  objectives  (protecting  the  financial  interests  of  the  Union  and  its 
Member States, protecting the EU from unfair and illegal trade, ensuring the security and 
safety of the Union and its residents, and the protection of the environment, maintaining a 
proper balance between customs controls and facilitation of legitimate trade) are deemed 
to provide an appropriate overarching framework, with consensus on the fact that the 
UCC needs to facilitate the achievement of and an appropriate balance between all four of 
these. 

As for the specific objectives, reflecting the main improvements expected from the UCC 
legal  and  IT  framework  there  was  also  agreement  among  stakeholders  that  all  three 
specific  objectives  were  and  continue  to  be  highly  relevant,  since  they  are  closely 
related  to  the  most  important  needs.  Overall,  the  specific  objective  that  was  deemed 
most  important  by  most  customs  authorities  as  well  as  economic  operators  was  the 
facilitation  of  a  fully  paperless  customs  environment.  This  requires  not  only  the 
existence  of  IT  systems  that  are  capable  of  handling  all  customs  declarations  and 
operations, but also the interoperability of these systems to enable an effective exchange 
of information between customs administrations and traders throughout the EU. Such an 
environment  is  ultimately  expected  to  contribute  to  more  consistent,  simpler  and  faster 
customs processes and procedures, and to support all four of the general objectives. The 
strengthening of legal certainty and predictability is closely related to the need for more 
uniform as well as clearer customs rules, while streamlining and simplification is also 
directly relevant to the manifest need for clearer, simpler rules and procedures.  

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS? 

Upon a request by the European Parliament, the evaluation provides an interim assessment 
of the implementation of the Union Customs Code (UCC) from its effective application in 
2016  until  2020  (half  way  until  its  full  completion  by  2025).  It  evaluates  the 
implementation of the legal provisions and the delivery of the IT systems in terms of its 
effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence with related policies and EU added value. 

The  UCC  is  the  main  legal  and  IT  framework  for  the  EU  Customs  Union  customs 
processes. It is a vast, complex and wide-ranging bundle of legal acts adopted at EU level 
that  govern  a  large  number  of  procedures  and  processes  implemented  by  the  Member 
States’ customs authorities. 

51 

 
 
The  main  conclusion  of  the  evaluation  is  that  the  UCC  implementation  has  so  far 
contributed to the general objectives of protecting the financial interests of the Union and 
the Member States and protecting the safety and security of the Union’s citizens only to a 
certain extent. The evaluation cannot conclude on the third general objective of the UCC, 
the  facilitation  of  legitimate  trade,  because  the  main  legal  provisions  and  IT  systems 
intended for that purpose are not yet applicable.  

As  for  the  three  specific  objectives  the  UCC  was  called  upon  to  achieve,  the  UCC 
implementation has succeeded in streamlining the customs rules, procedures and processes 
in certain areas but has not simplified them. In the streamlined areas, the perception is one 
of enhanced legal certainty and predictability, but that perception does not extend to the 
UCC as a whole, mostly because numerous rules are still not uniformly applied across the 
Member States. The full automation of the customs processes is still in the process of being 
achieved  and  the  length  and  complexity  of  that  ambitious  process  has  caused  a  certain 
“fatigue” among customs administrations and economic operators alike, even if significant 
milestones have already been accomplished. 

The evaluation has been supported by an evaluation study which itself has been mainly 
based  on  desk  research  and  field  research  using  a  number  of  tools  such  as  a  Public 
Consultation, targeted surveys and interviews. A broad range of stakeholders (the customs 
authorities  of  all  the  Member  States,  Commission  officials,  industry  associations 
representing customs brokers, operators in the field of customs logistics, sea, air and rail 
transporters,  express  and  postal  operators,  shipping,  airports  and  seaports  operators, 
chemicals, automotive industry, manufacturing industry) were involved in these activities 
in  order  to  gather  the  most  representative  results.  The  Commission  has  also  conducted 
targeted consultations. 

The main limitations that the evaluation has faced are related to the availability of data 
allowing for the quantification of the costs and benefits of the new elements of the UCC. 
Both Member States and economic operators have found it difficult to isolate the costs of 
adaptation to the new rules from the costs of running the usual customs operations because 
the need to adapt to new rules and IT systems has become a constant element in the customs 
environment. For the same reason, it is difficult to quantify in monetary terms the benefits 
that the new rules and IT system are progressively bringing, particularly at a time in which 
many of them, arguably the most relevant, are still under development. In order to mitigate 
these  limitations,  certain  IT  systems  have  been  used  to  illustrate  or  show-case  specific 
benefits  and  this,  together  with  the  available  qualitative  data  was  analysed  in  order  to 
identify  overall  trends  in  the  collection  of  customs  duties  or  number  of  customs 
declarations.  

The more specific findings of this evaluation are summarised below. 

Implementation in progress 

The 17 UCC IT systems should have been developed by end 2020, according to the original 
schedule established by the basic regulation at the time of its adoption in 2013. However, 
given the magnitude of this task and the numerous challenges encountered by the Member 

52 

 
States and the Commission, the original planning had to be amended in order to introduce 
a more realistic schedule. The end of this planning is currently 2025. 

The customs authorities and economic operators consider that the legal provisions of the 
UCC are overall on track but that some difficulties remain with the implementation of the 
IT  systems.  Eight  systems  were  successfully  deployed  by  2020  and  are  working 
satisfactorily  according  to  stakeholders,  four  more  were  deployed  in  2021  while  five 
systems are to be deployed gradually by end 2025.  

The real  challenge for the Member States has been their capacity to  deal with  frequent 
changes and with the very high “density” of initiatives to be carried out in parallel. In 
addition to  the implementation of the new UCC legal rules and IT projects, other tasks 
affected  the  work  of  customs  in  the  period  considered,  namely  the  VAT  e-commerce 
package  and  the  measures  necessary  to  address  unexpected  developments  such  as  the 
COVID-19 pandemic and the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union.  

Success of the intervention 

The implementation of the UCC’s legal and IT framework in the first five years after 
its entry into force is only partially successful.  

Given the vast areas covered, eight (8) issues and four (4) cases studies guided the analysis 
to assess whether the UCC had streamlined and simplified the customs rules and processes, 
provide legal certainty and predictability and create a paperless customs environment.  

The  provisions  on  harmonised  data  requirements,  the  uniform  rules  for  customs 
decisions,  the  centralised  IT  systems,  rules  on  Authorised  Economic  Operators 
(AEO), the rules on guarantees and on special procedures and the requirements for 
temporary storage have been streamlined and rationalised denoting clear progress. By 
contrast,  the  rules  intended  to  provide  simpler  methods  for  lodging  the  customs 
declarations (simplifications) were not improved in this respect, either because they did 
not  change  from  the  previous  Code  or  because  they  do  not  yet  result  in  actual 
simplifications. The two UCC innovations deemed to have the highest potential to generate 
significant  benefits  for  trade  facilitation,  self-assessment  and  EU-level  centralised 
clearance for import, have not yet been implemented, due to a lack of clarity and the 
postponement of the relevant IT system ‘Centralised Clearance for Import – UCC CCI’.  

In the areas mentioned above, where there is an increased harmonisation compared to 
the  previous  legislation,  there  is  also  a  perception  of  higher  legal  certainty  and 
predictability.  

By  contrast,  a  lack  of  uniform  application  has  also  affected  the  perception  of  legal 
certainty. This applies in particular to AEO monitoring practices, where the absence of 
specific rules undermines the ‘trustworthiness’ of AEO traders, and to risk management. 
In this area, the introduction of common risk criteria improved the applicable framework 
but  the  lack  of  more  detailed  rules  in  the  UCC  continues  to  leave  the  Member  States 
considerable  discretion  and  therefore  divergent  practices  emerge.  In  the  case  of 
harmonised data requirements, the lack of legal certainty was due to frequent changes 
necessary to develop and adapt them, requiring major efforts from the Member States and 

53 

 
attracting criticism but they are recognised as a precondition for effective digitalisation and 
system interoperability.  

Concerning  the  creation  of  the  paperless  customs  environment,  progress  to  date  is 
partial, due to the reasons outlined above on the completion of the UCC IT systems 
Five  central  trans-European  UCC  IT  systems  deployed  by  2020  were  analysed  in  the 
evaluation showing that tangible benefits were generated, in particular by the Customs 
Decisions  System  (CDS),  which  allowed  the  digitalisation  of  the  processes  for  several 
types of customs decisions and authorisations and to a lesser extent the AEO system, EBTI 
and  REX.    Additional  progress  will  depend  on  the  ongoing  IT  developments  that  are 
expected on a rolling timetable running to 2025. 

As for the general objectives of the UCC: 

  On the protection of the financial interests of the EU and its Member States, there has, 
overall, been a relatively stronger focus on protecting the EU’s financial interests, 
with  a  number  of  measures  having  direct  impacts  on  the  efforts  to  collect  customs 
duties and detect customs fraud, such as the increased scope of compulsory guarantees 
and the establishment and application of the financial risk criteria. Nonetheless,  the 
aforementioned  lack  of  uniformity  still  exists  in  risk  management  and  control 
practice, due to the legal room for discretion at national level combined with different 
priorities and resource levels and the lack of standards to measure the effectiveness of 
controls.  The  evaluation  also  found  implementation  problems  in  the  field  of  e-
commerce:  the  dramatic  increase  in  low-value  consignments  shipped  directly  to 
consumers poses certain financial risks (see below for non-financial risks). The new 
rules that entered into force in July 2021 assist with collecting valuable information on 
undervaluation and misdeclaration in this type of commerce. 

  On the goal of ensuring the safety and security of the EU and its residents, the UCC 
introduced a few changes, such as the obligation to file information allowing for the 
analysis of the security risk of goods prior to their arrival into the Union, but achieved 
limited progress. The completion of a crucial IT system [the Import Control System 
(ICS2),  whose  first  release  was  deployed  in  March  2021]  and  the  appropriate  legal 
basis to process data is expected to generate significant benefits in that respect and 
to  facilitate  the  application  of  new  common  risk  criteria  for  safety  and  security. 
However, the UCC did not introduce major changes in the area of prohibitions and 
restrictions. The evaluation revealed that the UCC implementation did not fully tap 
into the potential synergies with related policies and proper coordination between 
customs authorities and other relevant national administrations in charge of applying 
EU  policies  at  the  border  is  lacking.  This  limits  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of 
control. Economic operators and customs authorities perceive insufficient coordination 
for  the  purpose  of  aligning  requirements,  standards  (particularly  regarding  data 
collection and sharing) and procedures between customs and “non-customs” systems 
and processes. The evaluation also found challenges in the field of e-commerce. The 
customs  authorities  admittedly  lack  the  capacity  to  sufficiently  control  a  significant 
proportion of the consignments to block the most dangerous goods, while it is unclear 

54 

 
if the newly introduced simplified customs declaration contains enough data to allow 
for risk analysis of customs and security-related aspects.  

  On  the  objective  of  facilitating  legitimate  trade, the  UCC  ‘game-changers’-  trade 
facilitations for economic operators have not yet been implemented, as explained 
above.  Against  this  picture,  some  incremental  improvements  have  materialised  to 
date,  namely  simplifying  and  speeding  up  various  processes  with  the  support  of  IT 
systems such as CDS, EBTI and REX. Overall, the still ‘potential’ nature of many UCC 
benefits  reinforces  a  recurrent  theme  in  the  evaluation,  namely  that  much  of  the 
implementation effort necessarily precedes the realisation of the anticipated benefits. 

In the cases in which this distinction is possible, the evaluation shows that both customs 
and economic operators incurred significant one-off transition costs, mainly due to IT 
developments and the need to re-assess all authorisations issued before the entry into force 
of  the  UCC,  but  the  UCC  has  not  led  to  any  substantial  changes  to  administrative, 
compliance or enforcement costs overall. The direct benefits include minor time savings 
for stakeholders as a result of clearer, more rational and well-structured rules and criteria 
in certain areas, and of the IT systems that have been deployed so far, as well as enhanced 
legal certainty and uniformity of interpretation and application of certain provisions.  

A  recurring  theme  of  the  evaluation  is  the  very  common  expectation  that,  once  all  IT 
systems  are  fully  operational,  and  all  relevant  UCC  processes  fully  digitalised  and 
harmonised, this will lead to substantial cost savings for both economic operators and 
customs.  

The role of the Union in this intervention 

The European Union has exclusive competence in the area of customs, therefore customs 
legislation is adopted at EU level and implemented together by the Member States and the 
Commission. The Customs Union requires that the customs rules are, and continue to be, 
defined, at Union level. In this respect, the EU added value applies to the balance between 
the Union-established requirements for the desired levels of uniformity and efficiency, and 
the flexibility provided to  the Member States  for dealing with  individual  situations  and 
priorities. 

In connection with this, the findings on the effectiveness are valid. The UCC succeeded 
in certain areas. However, the insufficient harmonisation and varied interpretation of 
rules continues to be a problem in other areas.  

For  the  IT  systems,  the  evaluation  shows  positive  results  and  stakeholder  satisfaction 
towards the systems that have been developed with a central approach. Meanwhile, the 
support provided by the Customs 2020 and successor Customs financial programmes has 
been an essential catalyst in the implementation of the IT projects, but also for the correct 
application of the legal provisions. 

Is the UCC still relevant? 

The evaluation showed that the UCC is still relevant. The evaluation did not point to any 
significant needs that could not be encapsulated in one or more of the specific and general 
objectives of the current UCC framework. The evaluation shows that the  most pressing 

55 

 
challenges that customs are faced with today are the capacity to handle the huge volume 
of customs declarations and procedures from e-commerce operations, and the increasing 
responsibilities of customs mainly related to prohibitions and restrictions. 

56 

 
 
 
ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  Lead  DG,  Decide  reference  and,  if  relevant,  Work  Programme  reference. 

Derogations granted and justification 

DG TAXUD; PLAN/2019/5876. 

2.  Organisation and timing. 

The chronology of the evaluation can be summarised as follows: 

  Inter-service steering group: created on 26 March 2020, with the participation 
of DG TAXUD, DG AGRI, DG BUDG, DIGIT, EEAS, ESTAT, DG GROW, DG 
HOME, DG JUST, DG MOVE, OLAF, DG SANTE, DG TRADE and SG. DG 
MARE and DG NEAR were invited but did not participate in the group. 

  Meetings of the interservice steering group: the interservice steering group met 
six  times  on  22/9/2020,  27/10/2020,  13/01/2021,  31/03/2021,  22/09/2021, 
9/12/2021. 

  Terms of reference for the external study: finalised on 08/06/2020. 

  Roadmap: published on 18/6/2020. 

  External study: carried out between September 2020 and December 2021. 

  Public consultation: from 26 April 2021 to 19 July 2021. 

  Staff  Working  Document:  submitted  to  the  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  on  5 
January 2022 with the associated documents; to be published once finalised and 
endorsed by the Commission [date of publication will be added once defined]. 

3.  Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board  

The  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  was  consulted  and  discussed  the  evaluation  at  a 
meeting on 2 February 2022. It issued a positive opinion with comments on 4 February 
2022  (ARES(2022)829582).  The  comments  were  taken  into  account  in  the  revised 
version of the evaluation. 

4.  Evidence used together with sources and any issues regarding its quality (i.e. has the 

information been quality assured?)  

The  evidence  used  in  this  evaluation  collected  through  desk  research  was  derived 
from the following sources: 

  Commission documents: main sources included:  

 

Impact Assessment on the proposal accompanying the Modernised Customs 
Code  plus  annexes  (COM(2005)  608  final,  COM(2005)  609  final, 
SEC/2005/1543). 

  Communication  on  the  EU  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  for  customs  risk 
management:  Tackling  risks,  strengthening  supply  chain  security  and 
facilitating trade (COM/2014/527). 

57 

 
 
  European  Parliament  resolution  of  19  January  2017  on  tackling  the 
challenges  of  the  Union  Customs  Code  implementation  and  Commission 
response (2016/3024 (RSP - P8_TA(2017)0011). 

  Council Conclusions on the Follow up of the Union Customs Code (OJ C 

357, 29.09.2016, p.2). 

  Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on 
the implementation of the Union Customs Code and on the exercise of the 
power  to  adopt  delegated  acts  pursuant  to  Article  284  thereunder 
(COM(2018)39 final). 

  Annual Reports from the Commission to the European Parliament and the 
Council pursuant to Article 278a of the Union Customs Code, on progress 
in developing the electronic systems provided for under the Code, adopted 
in 2019 and 2020 (COM(2019)629 final; COM(2020)806 final). 

  Report from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament 
Third Progress Report on the implementation of the EU Strategy and Action 
Plan for customs risk management, COM(2021)9 final and  SWD(2021)2 
final. 

  Statistical data on international trade and customs activities from Eurostat. 

  Annual Reports of the Customs Union Performance (CUP) for 2016, 2017, 
2018, 2019, 2020. The CUP reports are marked as "EU limited" and can only 
be used on a "need to know" basis; the data used in this evaluation are non-
confidential and publicly available on DG TAXUD website. 

  Fit  for  Future  Platform  Opinion  adopted  on  the  10  December  2021  (Ref. 

2021/SBGR3/13). 

  Reports from the Court of Auditors on customs issues, namely: 

  Special Report No 19/2017: Import procedures: shortcomings in the legal 
framework and an ineffective implementation impact the financial interests 
of the EU  

  Special Report no 26/2018: A series of delays in Customs IT systems: what 

went wrong? 

  Special  Report  no  12/2019:  E-commerce:  many  of  the  challenges  of 

collecting VAT and customs duties remain to be resolved ( 

  Special Report no 04/2021: Customs controls: insufficient harmonisation 

hampers EU financial interests. 

The other sources of evidence used in the evaluation include: 

  Evidence from Member States in the context of the external study (opinions and 
figures): preliminary interviews, replies to written questionnaires submitted to 
all 27 Member States’ customs authorities between November 2020 and February 

58 

 
2021, 112 interviews in a sample of 10 Member States between April and July 
2021 (Germany, Netherlands, France,  Italy, Poland,  Ireland, Sweden, Romania, 
Estonia,  Luxembourg).  Evidence from Member  States include detailed  data on 
the development of the IT systems covered by the evaluation. 

  Evidence from economic operators in the context of the external study (opinions 
and figures): preliminary interviews, replies to written questionnaires submitted 
to the members of the Trade Contact Group between November 2020 and February 
2021, targeted interviews of national operators and companies in a sample of 10 
Member States between April and July 2021. Additional evidence was gathered 
by the Commission at a dedicated meeting of the Trade Contact Group on 30 
September 2021 (cfr Register of Expert Groups). 

  Evidence from public consultation: contributions from business representatives, 

individual companies, citizens, public authorities and NGOs. 

The quality of the evidence is mixed. The external study by Economisti Associati is based 
on  comprehensive  information  collection,  review,  desk  research  and  stakeholder 
interaction,  but  it  focuses  on  qualitative  analysis  due  to  the  difficulty  in  gathering 
quantitative data. Nevertheless, the evidence and information gathered by the contractor 
was  cross-checked  from  different  sources.  The  other  consultation  activities  carried  out 
could not fill the gap of the quantitative data. Overall, the level of quantification in the 
evaluation analysis suffers from the limited availability of relevant quantitative data (e.g. 
confidential business data) and from a dearth of fully comparable indicators to cover the 
scope of the evaluation.  

5.  Use of external expertise.  

The  evaluation  is  supported  by  an  external  study,  carried  out  by  a  consortium  led  by 
(Specific  Contract  N°  06  under  Framework  Contract 
Economisti  Associati 
TAXUD/2019/CC/150,  for  a  “Study  to  support  the  interim  evaluation  of  the 
implementation  of  the  Union  Customs  Code”  –  TAXUD/2020/DE/315).  The  study 
provided evidence and findings on the implementation of the Union Customs Code that 
form the basis for the assessment made in this Staff Working Document. The methodology 
for the data collection was discussed and agreed with the Commission. 

The Commission discussed the state of play of the evaluation with the Customs Expert 
Group – General Customs Legislation section on 25 June 2021. 

This  Staff  Working  Document  also  considered  the  views  from  EU-wide  trade 
representatives’ organisations regarding the practical implementation of UCC provisions 
and customs processes therein that were expressed at the above mentioned meeting of the 
Trade Contact Group on 30 September 2021. 

59 

 
 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

Short description of methodology  

As  the  main  input  for  the  evaluation  comes  from  an  external  study  carried  out  by 
Economisti Associati72, the methodology used in this Staff Working Document is partly 
dependent on the one on which the study is based. In this respect, since the objective of the 
evaluation  is  to  analyse  the  state  of  implementation  of  the  UCC  package  in  light  of  its 
objectives, the methodology used in the supporting study was composed of two sequential 
phases: 

  Implementation review: the foundation of the study is a detailed understanding of the 
UCC’s  practical  implementation  in  terms  of  its  rules,  procedures  and  IT  systems 
(depicted in level 1 of the figure below). The data collection was mainly based on desk 
research and the replies to comprehensive written questionnaires submitted by all 27 
customs  authorities  and  21  economic  operators  from  the  Trade  Contact  Group 
members and their affiliates between November 2020 and February 2021.  

  Evaluation: the most significant provisions and changes introduced by the UCC (eight 
“key issues”, see infra) resulting from the analysis of the implementation review and 
the impacts of the UCC as a whole were the object of the evaluation phase of the study. 
Additional data collection and a deeper analysis were used for the UCC to be evaluated 
according to its specific and general objectives (levels 2 and 3) and in light of the five 
Better  Regulation  criteria.  Data  and  evidence  came  from  desk  research,  a  targeted 
consultation with both Commission officials and customs authorities in a sample of 10 
Member States73, a public consultation  and an  IT  costs assessment for  five systems 
(CDS, REX, EORI, EBTI and EOs/AEO). 

The  figure  also  shows  how  the  two-phase  approach  is  relevant  for  analysing  the  UCC 
objectives: the specific objectives pursued with the adoption of the UCC indicated as Level 
2, and its general objectives and impacts (as defined in Article 3 UCC) as Level 3. 

Figure 10: Conceptual design of the study 

72 Study to support the interim evaluation of the implementation of the Union Customs Code. 
73 Germany, Netherlands, France, Italy, Poland, Ireland, Sweden, Romania, Estonia, Luxembourg. 

60 

 
 
                                                           
Source: Economisti Associati  

The  eight  key  issues  through  which  the  UCC  was  analysed  cover  a  set  of  operational, 
significant UCC topics in terms of impacts and implementation difficulties, as described 
in the following table. 

Table 7: List of the UCC key issues and changes covered by the evaluation 

No  Key issue/change 

IT system(s) 
covered 

Brief description 

1  Harmonised data 
requirements 

None 

2  Harmonised rules 
and procedures for 
customs decisions 

CDS 

3  Obtaining and 

AEO system 

monitoring AEO 
status  

Since the introduction of the UCC, the data requirements are 
harmonised throughout the EU (and defined in great detail in 
UCC-DA and UCC- IA, Annexes B). This is to facilitate the 
interoperability of the IT systems, the harmonised application of 
the rules, and alignment with international customs data models. 
However, there have been frequent changes to Annexes B, and 
significant delays with the development of some crucial IT 
systems, meaning the harmonised data requirements are not yet 
fully applied. 

The rules and procedures regarding the various types of customs 
decisions were comprehensively recast and streamlined (UCC 
Art. 22-37). This includes new time limits for decisions upon 
application. A new, trans-European IT system (CDS) to 
harmonise the processes for application and management of 
customs decisions, in particular authorisations, was deployed in 
2017 and upgraded in 2020.  

A new AEOC criterion related to possessing proven practical 
standards of competence or professional qualifications was 
introduced (UCC Art. 39(d)). Other AEO criteria were 
strengthened by adding additional conditions (UCC Art. 39(a), 
(b), (c) and (e)). The AEO IT system was upgraded to align the 
business processes related to AEO applications, authorisations 
and their management with the UCC changes.  

61 

 
 
No  Key issue/change 

4  Risk management 
and controls 

5  Centralised IT 

systems supporting 
the implementation 
of UCC rules on 
customs tariff, origin 
and valuation 

6  Guarantees and 
guarantee 
management 

7  Changes to 

temporary storage 
requirements  

Brief description 

UCC Art. 46-50, along with provisions in the DA and IA 
establish a common approach to customs risk management in 
the form of the EU Common Risk Management Framework, as 
well as providing a legal base for common action in this area. 
Since there is significant room for Member State discretion, the 
focus was on whether the UCC provides an adequate framework 
for achieving a uniform level of control and for dealing with 
emerging and future challenges.  

This issue focused on three supporting IT systems, all of which 
use a centralised approach and which support the 
implementation of UCC rules on customs tariff, origin and 
valuation, namely EBTI, REX and SURV3.  

Recent changes to guarantees include the introduction of more 
situations where the provision of a guarantee is mandatory, as 
well as more situations where the guarantee must also cover 
import VAT and excise duty.  

The rules for temporary storage have undergone several 
important changes regarding the need for authorisation, 
duration, movements between temporary storage facilitates and 
ability to make declarations in advance.  

IT system(s) 
covered 

None  
While CRMS falls 
under this issue, it 
was not in the scope 
of this study. ICS2 
was still in 
development and 
thus also not 
covered. 

EBTI, REX and 
SURV3 

None  
While GUM falls 
under this issue, it 
was still under 
development and 
thus not examined. 

None 
While national TS 
systems relate to this 
issue, they are under 
development and has 
not be examined for 
the study. 

8  Simplifications  

None  

The UCC introduced several simplifications that are already in 
place, namely simplified declaration, SASP (as a precursor to 
centralised clearance for import), EIDR and self-assessment 
(though the latter has not been implemented in practice). Some 
attention was also devoted to the preparatory work on the 
centralised clearance for import (CCI) system and related 
provisions. Centralised clearance for export is being introduced 
as part of the AES system, but is still in development and was 
not examined.  

In addition to the written questionnaires in the first phase and the 112 targeted interviews 
conducted by the contractor, data collection activities also included a public consultation 
from April to July 2021 and discussion in the context of the Trade Contact Group (TCG), 
a  Commission  expert  group  composed  of  trade  representatives.74  Limitations  and 
robustness of findings 

The UCC package is a very large and complex bundle of legal acts amounting to more 
than 950 articles and 1000 pages of legislation. It is therefore unrealistic for the evaluation 
to cover every aspect of the UCC’s vast scope in equal detail, also considering that many 
adopted changes are corrections, adjustments and adaptations of legal provisions, which 
do  not  constitute  substantial  innovations.  With  this  in  mind  and  for  the  analysis  to  be 
manageable and useful, it was necessary to reduce the scope of the assessment to the most 
important aspects and changes. This was done by basing much of the evaluation on an in-

74 See Annex 1 for procedural details. 

62 

 
 
                                                           
depth assessment of the eight key issues identified above. Other elements that justify this 
choice are the partial state of implementation of the UCC package, part of which depends 
on future IT developments, and the availability of data and evidence. 

One of the main limitations of the evaluation resides in the lack of systematic quantitative 
data for the cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Despite a systematic approach to defining costs 
and benefits and gathering data on them, the consultation activities provided very limited 
quantitative information. There were several reasons for this, related  to the marginal or 
incremental nature of many of the changes, the conceptual challenge of translating certain 
types of benefits (such as increased clarity) into quantifiable values, and the difficulty for 
interviewees  to  access  and  provide  detailed  data  on  costs.  The  latter  was  partly  an 
unwillingness to spend the significant time needed to access and collate certain types of 
data (e.g. on IT expenditure or human resources) for the period of the study, partly an issue 
of confidentiality. Due to these factors, the contractor was not able to deliver the intended 
partial CBA, as planned in the inception phase of the study.  Instead, a large amount of 
relevant data for the assessment of efficiency was provided, including qualitative data on 
the nature and significance of key benefits and costs, as well as some quantified figures 
that are not representative enough to base a CBA on, but that could serve to illustrate the 
scale of benefits and costs in specific cases. Given the difficulties in obtaining relevant 
evidence for quantitative analysis, the focus is put on qualitative assessment. 

Relatedly, due to the importance of stakeholder experiences for the implementation of the 
UCC,  as  well  as  the  relative  scarcity  of  relevant  secondary  data,  direct  input  from 
stakeholders was the most important type of evidence source for the study. To ensure 
the  validity  of  the  results,  the  consultations  were  carried  out  so  as  to  cover  the  widest 
possible spectrum of potential interests, priorities and experiences. Interviews were carried 
out among a large sample of customs authorities and economic operators, with a focus on 
a  fairly  large  sample  of  10  Member  States,  while  the  EU-wide  coverage  of  the 
implementation  questionnaire  and  public  consultation  allowed  for  the  results  to  be 
validated among a broader audience. On the side of economic operators, a variety of sectors 
and profiles were covered, as well as both representative groups and individual companies. 
While  the  names  of  organisations  and  Member  States  are  not  mentioned,  the  type  of 
stakeholder and whether a certain view or experience is widespread or not, are also made 
explicit. Wherever possible, findings were triangulated, either using input from different 
stakeholders or data collection methods, or secondary sources. Overall, this should ensure 
sufficient confidence in the findings of the evaluation, although findings are not based on 
statistically representative samples or objectively ‘hard’ data.  

As  mentioned,  an  important  limitation  of  the  evaluation  relates  to  the  fact  that  the 
implementation of part of  the UCC package is in fact  still in progress, because the 
legal  deadlines  for  the  completion  of  certain  IT  processes  will  expire  well  after  the 
temporal  scope  of  the  evaluation.  This  is  particularly  true  for  IT  systems  such  as 
Centralised Clearance for Import (CCI) and Import Control System 2 (ICS2), which are 
not  yet  in  place  at  the  time  of  writing  but  are  expected  to  bring  crucial  benefits  for 
authorities and traders alike, once fully implemented (respectively 2023 and 2024). Other 
IT systems designed to facilitate the work of the involved parties are also planned to be in 

63 

 
place by end 2025: GUM and NCTS Phase 6. Instead, the evaluation covers five IT systems 
that were deployed by the end of 2020, in line with the temporal scope of the evaluation 
itself. These are CDS, REX, EORI, EBTI and EOs/AEO. 

Some of the findings of this evaluation refer to the absence in the UCC package of adequate 
answers  to  the  new  challenges  encountered  by  customs  authorities.  This  concerns  in 
particular the insufficient solutions provided by the UCC for the treatment of e-commerce 
transactions  and  for  prohibitions  and  restrictions.  The  external  study  addressed  this 
problem in the form of case-studies, offering a horizontal analysis of inter-related elements 
that emerged during the “main” line of research. However, since these topics are not part 
of the evaluation’s scope as such, such analysis is neither comprehensive nor complete, 
although useful to understand how new business models and evolving tasks impact on an 
established legislative framework. 

Specific findings on the eight key issues covered by the evaluation 

To complete the Annex on methodology, this section includes the individual analysis of 
each  of  the  eight  main  UCC  changes  or  significant  provisions  covered  by  the 
evaluation  that  detail  the  general  findings  on  the  UCC’s  effectiveness,  efficiency  and 
coherence in the report. 

a)  Rules  and  procedures  for  customs  decisions:  aimed  at  streamlining  the  rules  and 
procedures regarding the various types of customs decisions, including uniform new time 
limits for issuing decisions upon application. Rules are implemented through a new, trans-
European  IT  system  to  harmonise  the  processes  for  application  and  management  of 
customs decisions, in particular authorisations, the Customs Decision System.  

In this area, the UCC has successfully streamlined and simplified the rules, increased legal 
certainty and contributed to creating the paperless customs environment because the UCC 
replaced,  with  a  set  of  common  rules  located  among  the  general  provisions,  rules  that 
previously differed depending on the type of decision and were included in the different 
parts  of  the  CCC.  According  to  customs  authorities,  the  new  provisions  simplified  the 
process both across different types of applications, by setting common requirements, but 
also across Member States, contributing to reducing differences in the requirements and 
processes for customs decisions. In particular, the binding time limits imposed by the UCC 
were seen by many stakeholders as  significant,  eliminating  the possibility of applicants 
having to wait an unknown and potentially indefinite period of time for customs to process 
their applications (which reportedly was not a frequent occurrence before the UCC, but the 
uncertainty around the time frames was sometimes a burden on traders). 

The enhanced clarity and level of detail of the new rules on decisions upon application 
have contributed to improving legal certainty.  

The Customs Decision System (CDS) processes 22 types of customs decisions allowing 
automatic data validation, and it is widely recognised as a step-change compared to the 
CCC,  even  if  some  Member  States  allow  the  continued  existence  of  both  a  central  EU 
system and national systems, which means that economic operators working in multiple 
Member States still need to deal with different national portals. According to the study, 

64 

 
greater impacts could be achieved if the scope of CDS were to be increased beyond the 
current 22 types of authorisations, which is possible in principle. However, the graph below 
illustrates  the  cumulative  number  of  applications  submitted  and  decisions  taken  on  a 
monthly  basis  from  October  2017,  the  date  of  commencement  of  this  IT  system,  to 
December 2020, showing that the system is increasingly being used. The more than 20,000 
decisions taken have a Union-wide validity  and therefore contribute to  a consistent and 
predictable application of Union law. 

Figure 6: Evolution of applications and decisions in the Customs Decisions systems 

Applications and Decisions in CDS

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

Total number of submitted applications

Total number of decisions

In  terms  of  costs  and  benefits,  the  main  elements  indicated  by  stakeholders  mainly 
related  to  the  deployment  of  the  CDS,  especially  by  the  customs  administrations  of 
countries that chose the central approach reported savings. The streamlining of the revised 
legal rules on customs decisions were welcomed but not associated with tangible benefits 
in practice. Regarding benefits, three customs administrations reported savings in relation 
to processing times and the tracking of time limits (one interviewee described the savings 
resulting  from  the introduction of streamlined procedures as  “huge”),  and two Member 
States indicated reductions in  the time taken to  consult  other Member States in  case of 
multi-country decisions (which frees up resources for other activities). Another Member 
State indicated that they expected time savings to accrue once the initial teething phase 
was concluded. As for costs, one Member State reported costs in ensuring compatibility 
of CDS with the national  IT system amounting to nearly EUR350,000 and over 11,000 
hours  of  work.  The  cost  of  training  and  awareness  raising  for  customs  officials  and/or 
traders  was  described  as  negligible  by  all  but  one  of  the  customs  administrations  that 
provided information. In a similar vein, some economic operators reported that the process 
of applying for decisions has become significantly faster as a result of the new rules and 
the CDS, but also that they had incurred one-off costs related to having to upgrade internal 
IT systems.  

b)  Authorised Economic Operator: the UCC did not simplify the rules for obtaining and 
monitoring AEO status but increased legal certainty and predictability while contributing 
to the creation of an electronic customs environment. At the end of 2020, there were 14,868 
operators authorised as AEO, which were involved in 74,3% of the total Union imports 

65 

 
 
and 83% of the total Union exports. AEO is therefore relevant for a very significant part 
of Union trade.75 

For some customs authorities and economic operators the new/more detailed criteria and 
conditions introduced by the UCC have added complexity without giving AEOs access 
to significant additional simplifications. In return, the new legislation is considerably more 
detailed and comprehensive in relation to the conditions to be fulfilled to obtain the AEO 
status and this provides legal certainty. While the provisions regarding compliance with 
taxation rules had initially raised some interpretation issues that culminated in a case before 
the  European  Court  of  Justice76,  the  AEO  guidelines  clarified  the  issue  and  thus 
strengthened the clarity of the provisions. Nevertheless, several Member States and some 
economic  operators  underlined  that,  despite  the  UCC’s  harmonisation  effort,  different 
approaches  remained  in  the  EU  in  relation  to  monitoring  and  audits  for  AEOs.  Such 
divergences were also identified by the ECA in its recent reports on import procedures and 
e-commerce, which found that the AEO monitoring practices in some Member States may 
imperil the protection of the EU’s financial interests.77 Such problem was also highlighted 
in the F4F opinion. 

The  EOS/AEO  system  digitalised  and  streamlined  the  process  for  dealing  with  AEO 
applications, even if there are some national differences depending on whether individual 
Member States provide access to the system via the EU Trader Portal or national portals. 
The system has proved to be very beneficial for customs authorities, who frequently need 
to  process  and  check  the  status  of  operators,  while  it  is  more  of  a  minor  benefit  for 
businesses,  for  whom  making  an  AEO  application  is  not  a  regular  action.  It  is  also 
important  to  point  out  that  the  process  is  not  entirely  digital,  as  paper  documents  and 
correspondence  were also required for some aspects  of the application process  in  some 
Member States. 

As  mentioned,  the  clarified  AEO  criteria  and  conditions  were  not  associated  with  any 
tangible  benefits  for  stakeholders.  Instead,  customs  authorities  and  economic  operators 
were  confronted  with  non-negligible  one-off  costs  during  the  implementation  phase 
mainly for the reassessment of authorisations, training and adaptation of internal processes.  

c)  Centralised IT systems supporting the implementation of UCC rules on customs tariff, 
origin  and  valuation,  all  of  which  use  a  centralised  approach.  In  this  area,  the  customs 
authorities and the economic operators agree that the UCC has successfully streamlined 
and simplified the rules, increased legal certainty and contributed to creating the paperless 
customs environment. 

Three systems were analysed under this point: REX, EBTI and SURV3.  

75 The number of economic operators that were granted the AEO status decreased from 15574 in 2016 to 
14868 in 2020, due to a strong decline in applications (almost by half) between 2019 and 2020 (source: 
Customs Union Performance 2020). 

76 C-496/17, Deutsche Post AG vs Hauptzollamt Köln. 
77 Special report No 19/2017: Import procedures: shortcomings in the legal framework and an ineffective 
implementation impact the financial interests of the EU; Special Report no 12/2019: E-commerce: many 
of the challenges of collecting VAT and customs duties remain to be resolved. 

66 

 
                                                           
The Registered Exporter system (REX) provides a Union-valid database of exporters in 
third  countries  (beneficiary  countries  of  the  GSP,  Overseas  Countries  and  Territories, 
partner countries in some preferential agreements) that are entitled to declare the origin of 
the  goods  they  produce  or  trade.  Importers,  freight-forwarders,  customs  brokers  or  any 
other operator in  the Union can therefore check  therein  that their foreign counterpart is 
effectively entitled to declare the origin of its goods. This assurance significantly reduces 
the risk for the Union operator,  as the origin  of  the goods is  one of the factors used to 
calculate  the  duties  and  assess  non-financial  risks  inherent  in  some  products.  REX 
therefore provides legal certainty to the economic operators. 

The REX system also provides a database of registered exporters established in the Union, 
who are entitled to declare the origin of the goods exported to partner countries of some 
preferential  agreements,  with  the  benefit  of  having  a  centralized  database  of  registered 
exporters and a common registration procedure in the Union. 

The graph below shows the registrations over time from 2017 to 2020 both for the Union 
and for third countries and therefore the growing success of the system. In total, more than 
100,000 operators are registered to provide valid proofs of origin.  

Figure 7: Evolution of registrations in the REX system 

EBTI provides a central database for BTI applications, effectively digitalising the process 
in a harmonised way and allowing customs authorities to verify the decisions on binding 
tariff  origin  made  by  the  Member  States.  It  reduces  the  time  for  issuing  decisions  and 
avoids duplications or errors. EBTI ensures the Union-wide validity of the BTIs as well as 
their binding character, for 3 years, throughout the EU, regardless of where they are issued. 
They are binding on all EU customs administrations and the holder. It replaced a paper-
based  process.  According  to  stakeholders,  the  system  is  helpful  in  guaranteeing  full 
compliance  with  relevant  UCC  provisions  and  ensuring  a  harmonised  approach.  EBTI 
provides economic operators legal certainty when calculating the price of import or export 
transactions and secures a uniform application of the Common Customs Tariff, in line with 

67 

 
 
the objectives of the UCC to achieve more simplicity and uniformity in the application of 
customs rules. 

SURV3 allows the Commission to collect data from the electronic declarations lodged in 
the  Member  States.  SURV3  exploits  the  digitalisation  in  order  to  improve  the 
Commission’s surveillance capacity by providing relevant information on import/export 
flows. SURV3 is very valuable for the Commission because it provides essential data for 
monitoring the functioning of the customs union.  

In  terms  of  costs  and  benefits  of  the  centralised  IT  systems  that  have  already  been 
deployed (REX and EBTI), the savings are very difficult to quantify, as they relate mainly 
to  the fact  that most Member States  no longer need to  develop  and maintain their own 
national systems but can instead directly access the centralised EU databases. This brings 
associated benefits, in terms of reducing the time required for verification and ensuring 
increased  harmonisation  and  certainty  for  economic  operators.  Additionally,  there  are 
some  savings  resulting  from  the  transition  from  a  paper-based  to  an  electronic  system, 
although  it  also  reduces  the  ability  to  correct  errors  without  restarting  the  application 
process. The costs are shown above.  

d)  Temporary  storage:  the  provisions  introduced  by  the  UCC  in  this  area  were 
streamlined  to  a  certain  extent  but  not  also  simplified,  although  they  are  significantly 
clearer than under the previous Code.  

The main changes in this area were the introduction of the 90-day maximum duration for 
temporary storage, which is a streamlining of the rules, and the possibility to authorise a 
movement  of  goods  from  one  temporary  storage  facility  to  another  without  a  transit 
procedure. This is intended to simplify the process for economic operators and customs 
authorities.  Yet,  while  some  customs  authorities  reported  that  monitoring  has  become 
simpler  (due  to  having  only  one  maximum  duration),  according  to  most  economic 
operators  consulted  the  changes  have  made  the  situation  more  complex  by  imposing 
requirements  for  a  guarantee,  the  need  to  obtain  an  authorisation  and  to  designate  a 
specified location for temporary storage.  

Through the introduction of more detailed and specific rules on temporary storage, the 
UCC has increased legal certainty and predictability for economic operators, who can now 
expect the same treatment regardless of the Member State in which they operate. However, 
this comes at a cost for operators, since they have to obtain an authorisation and a guarantee 
for temporary storage, unlike in the pre-UCC era. 

Regarding  the  move  to  paperless  customs,  the  Temporary  Storage  (TS)  IT  system,  is 
expected to be deployed by the Member States by end 2022 and was not analysed in this 
evaluation. Once this system is operational, it is expected to bring progress towards the 
objective of creating the electronic customs environment.78 

For  the  changes  to  the  temporary  storage  requirements,  the  limited  evidence  collected 
suggests  that  most  customs  administrations  found  the  transition  costs  to  have  been 

78 According to the 2019 UCC Work Programme, the deployment window for the TS system runs from Q2 

2016 to Q4 2022. 

68 

 
                                                           
‘significant’. Ongoing costs related to monitoring the authorisations and guarantees that 
are now required were also significant for some Member States. There is not enough data 
to be able to  reach firm conclusions with regard to the costs and benefits for economic 
operators.  Based  on  the  data  available,  a  mixed  picture  emerges  with  regard  to  the 
transition  costs,  which  can  sometimes  be  significant  (e.g.  a  multi-national  company 
described  significant  differences  depending  on  the  requirements  imposed  by  different 
Member States, with the most significant transition costs related to the need to invest in 
new or upgraded IT systems for temporary storage in certain countries). Recurring costs 
tend to be negligible, as are the resulting benefits for economic operators from the changes 
to the rules on temporary storage.79 

e)  Guarantees:  the  UCC  introduced  changes  to  include  additional  cases  where  the 
provision of a guarantee is mandatory, as well as where the guarantee must cover import 
VAT and excise duty. Overall, provisions in this area were clarified and streamlined to a 
certain extent but not also simplified. 

The  UCC  introduced  a  set  of  provisions  which  set  out  a  harmonised  framework  for 
guarantees  which  in  turn  provided  increased  uniformity  in  the  approaches  of  customs 
administrations  and  therefore  has  arguably  made  it  simpler  for  economic  operators 
operating  in  several  markets,  while  increasing  perceptions  of  complexity  among  those 
active in a single or small number of Member States. However, for stakeholders the new 
rules did not become simpler than under the previous code.  

With  the  harmonised  new  rules,  from  a  legal  point  of  view,  there  is  less  room  for 
interpretation  and  possible  divergences,  fewer  exceptions,  and  more  uniformity  across 
Member States. However, several economic operators reported a lack of clarity, ambiguity 
and/or discrepancies in the way the criteria for reductions and waivers are assessed, 
reference  amounts  monitored,  and  release  of  guarantees  handled.    This  caused  some 
worries  about  the  potential  for  sudden  changes,  which  could  have  serious  financial 
implications for traders, warehouse or temporary storage facility operators, etc. 80 

The guarantee process is expected to be fully digitalised and harmonised once the GUM 
project with its central and national component is fully deployed, at the latest by end 2025.81 
At the time of writing, the rules have been harmonised but the extent of digitalisation varies 
according to the national practices in place.  

Regarding costs, customs authorities and economic operators faced relatively minor one-
off  costs  to  implement  and  apply  the  new  rules.  However,  the  increased  scope  of 
compulsory guarantees requiring reference amounts to be calculated and monitored, has 
led to  increased  recurring administrative as well as compliance costs  for economic 
operators, with most interviewees describing the former as more significant than the latter, 
since the reference amounts need to be monitored even if the guarantee is waived (which 
was the case for many interviewees). The majority of economic operators who provided 

79 Economisti Associati (2021), page 84. 
80 According to the 2019 UCC Work Programme, the deployment window for the phase 1 of UCC CCI runs 

from Q1 2022 to Q4 2023, while the window for phase 2 runs from Q4 2023 to Q4 2025. 

81 According to the 2019 UCC Work Programme, the deployment window for GUM component 1 runs from 

Q4 2023 to Q2 2025, while the component 2 window is defined by MS and runs to Q2 2025. 

69 

 
                                                           
information on the guarantee regime reported an increase in administrative burdens due to 
having to spend more time on determining and monitoring the reference amount, with one 
estimating they now need an additional 0.25 FTEs to comply with the changed rules. On 
the other hand,  the  compliance costs (in terms of the capital  outlay) were described as 
minimal  or  non-existent  by  most  interviewees,  since  their  total  stock  of  guarantees 
increased  only  marginally  or  not  at  all  under  the  UCC.  Compliance  costs  would 
presumably  be  more  significant  for  non-AEOs,  who  typically  cannot  have  guarantees 
waived but who formed a relatively small share of our sample. There are also enforcement 
costs  for  national  customs  authorities  (some,  but  not  all,  interviewed  customs 
administrations  reported  increased  recurring  costs  for  processing  guarantees,  due  to  an 
increase in the number of authorisations and/or the average time spent per guarantee in 
determining  and  monitoring  the  reference  amount),  but  these  have  been  at  least  partly 
outweighed  by  the  benefits,  which  included  harmonisation  of  the  rules  across  the  EU, 
which saves time for customs officials. The increased scope of compulsory guarantees also 
contributes  to  securing  the  collection  of  customs  duties,  and  hence  to  protecting  the 
financial interests of the EU and its Member States, although there was some disagreement 
among  interviewees  about  the  extent  of  this,  with  some  arguing  that  guarantees  were 
already compulsory for higher-risk procedures pre-UCC, and their extension to more (less 
risky) procedures offers only minor benefits in this respect.  

f)  Harmonised data requirements (HDR): aimed at facilitating the interoperability of 
the IT systems, the harmonised application of the rules, and alignment with international 
customs  data  models.  Annexes  B  of  the  UCC  DA  and  IA  contain  the  common  data 
requirements for the exchange and storage of information between customs authorities as 
well  as  between  customs  authorities  and  economic  operators.  This  is  to  ensure  the 
horizontal  harmonisation  necessary  for  interoperability  between  the  customs  electronic 
systems  used  for  the  different  types  of  declarations,  notifications  and  proof  of  customs 
status of Union goods. The UCC streamlined the rules in this area to a certain extent but 
did not also simplify them; the frequent changes to the Annexes B reduced legal clarity 
and predictability in the transitional phase. 

Annexes B are considered by stakeholders as broadly  fit for purpose, comprehensive, 
logically  structured,  and  reasonably  clear,  thus  leaving  very  little  room  for  legal 
uncertainty. However, the data requirements  are neither different  in  nature, extent and 
scope, nor simpler or significantly more harmonised than under the old customs code: in 
this respect,  the UCC has maintained legal  certainty in  the transition  to  fully  electronic 
declarations. The ‘digitalisation’ of the data requirements has required certain elements to 
be defined in more detail and broken down in a more granular way, which has increased 
their overall complexity. If, for some customs administrations this was seen as inevitable 
and ultimately beneficial, economic operators perceive it as an increasing burden mainly 
related to the need to update their systems and to the fact that national customs authorities 
may require certain additional data elements. 

The main factor that affected legal certainty according to customs officials and operators 
consulted are the frequent changes to Annexes B, due to the need to align the common 
data requirements to the progressive deployment of the UCC IT systems and solve other 

70 

 
technical problems. This led to a lack of uniformity and predictability in the short term but 
problems  were  solved  with  the  revamped  Annexes  B  published  in  March  202182.  The 
constant addition of new requirements in the rolling-out of IT systems has been signalled 
in  the  F4F  Platform  opinion  as  a  source  of  additional  burden  in  terms  of  financial  and 
human resources, disrupting the implementation as planned.   

HDR  are  a  pre-condition  for  a  paperless  customs  environment  as  they  serve  as  a 
‘common  language’  for  interoperable  systems  and  data  sharing,  as  confirmed  by  both 
customs  authorities  and  economic  operators.  The  external  study  found  that  the  effort 
needed to implement the requirements, especially by making national import systems that 
were  previously  under  the  control  of  national  authorities  compliant  with  the  UCC 
requirements, coupled with delays to the deployment of many trans-European IT systems 
and the requirements’ own long gestation, means that they have only been implemented to 
a very limited extent.83 Stakeholders agreed that the requirements will eventually make an 
important contribution to the objective of paperless environment, but that this will come 
later in the implementation process.  

As the harmonised data requirements are an enabler of digitalisation and interoperability 
as opposed to a legal provision or an IT application as such, it is not possible to quantify 
the benefits or costs of the HDR per se. The main costs are related to the development of 
the  IT systems,  where the frequent  changes to  Annexes B appear to  have increased the 
costs for some stakeholders at least.84 The benefits will only materialise to a significant 
extent  once  Annex  B  is  applied  fully  and  consistently  across  the  EU.  In  general,  the 
benefits and costs of the HDR as such cannot be separated from those related to the IT 
systems. 

g)  Simplifications85:  the  UCC  introduced  three  main  simplifications  for  the  customs 
clearance of the goods: (a) entry in the declarant's records (EIDR) authorises the holder to 
lodge  a  customs  declaration  in  the  form  of  an  entry  into  the  declarant’s  own  records, 
provided that the particulars of that declaration are at the disposal of the customs authorities 
in  the  declarant's  system  when  the  declaration  is  lodged;  (b)  centralised  clearance 
authorises  a  holder  to  lodge,  or  make  available,  at  the  customs  office  where  he  is 
established, a customs declaration for goods, which are presented to customs at another 
customs office within the customs territory of the Union; and (c) self-assessment authorises 
an AEO to carry out certain customs formalities that are to be carried out by the customs 
authorities, to determine the amount of import and export duty payable, and to perform 
certain controls under customs supervision. In addition to simplified declarations, customs 

82 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/234 of 7 December 2020 amending Delegated Regulation 
(EU) 2015/2446 as regards common data  requirements, and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/341 as 
regards the codes to be used in certain forms (OJ L 63, 23.2.2021, p. 1). Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2021/235 of 8 February 2021 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 as 
regards formats and codes of common data requirements, certain rules on surveillance and the competent 
customs office for placing goods under a customs procedure (OJ L 63, 23.2.2021, p. 386). 

83 Economisti Associati (2021), page 63. 
84 Economisti Associati (2021), page 83. 
85 At the end of 2020, the total number of valid authorisations for the use of simplifications for import and 
export (EIDR, use of simplified declarations) was just over 30 thousand (excluding the United Kingdom 
29 080). Source: Customs Union Performance 2020. 

71 

 
                                                           
simplifications  also  include  the  reduction  or  waiver  of  comprehensive  guarantees,  the 
permission to move goods to another Member State while they are still under temporary 
storage (i.e. before they are put under a customs procedure). 

According  to  the  external  study,  the  UCC  has  clarified  the  application  of  certain 
simplifications, such as the use of simplified declarations and EIDR, reducing divergence 
between  Member  States  to  a  certain  extent.  The  amended  rules  on  EIDR  increased 
harmonisation, providing an advantage to businesses operating in multiple Member States. 
Conversely, the lack of  clarity  regarding self-assessment  and the uncertainty  around its 
application  in  practice  has  meant  that  this  simplification  has  not  been  used  in  a  single 
Member State to date, creating confusion and perplexity.86 The problem is reportedly the 
fact  that,  while  the  UCC  defined  self-assessment  quite  flexibly,  allowing  operators  to 
perform controls, the sectoral legislation would need to provide a legal basis for traders to 
perform such controls under customs supervision. This concern was also been highlighted 
in the F4F Platform opinion, which advised the development of a comprehensive concept 
of self-assessment as a simplification with clear and visible advantages for operators. 

Economic operators as well as customs authorities overwhelmingly agreed that the UCC 
had not brought any significant new or enhanced simplifications for traders: of the 
two which were deemed to have the highest potential to generate significant benefits, self-
assessment  has  turned  out  to  be  impossible  to  implement,  and  EU-level  centralised 
clearance for import will only be deployed in 2023. Moreover, economic operators pointed 
to other aspects that continue to or have become more burdensome under the UCC, such 
as the increase in the number of authorisations required as a result of the UCC.87 

Some progress towards paperless customs was achieved in the area of simplifications, 
insofar as it encouraged some Member States to implement the UCC principle of electronic 
customs declarations, although these were already used in other Member States. Residual 
paper-based  processes  were  mostly  attributed  to  goods  subject  to  prohibitions  and 
restrictions,  which  are  regulated  in  legislation  other  than  the  UCC.  Respondents  to  the 
public consultation also rated the mandate for electronic declarations as the most positive 
UCC change that had been implemented to date.88 In the Member States where a similar 
measure  was  not  already  in  place,  the  simplification  of  EIDR  also  increased 
digitalisation, although it is not widely implemented in all Member States.  

The costs for implementing the UCC simplifications are assessed by customs authorities 
and economic operators  in  divergent  ways. Divergences between the Member States in 
terms of changes in the number of controls, and improvements to processing speeds for 
customs  declarations  reported  by  customs  and  some  economic  operators,  suggests  the 
impact  of  the  simplifications  varied  depending  on  existing  customs  practices  in  the 
Member States prior to the UCC. Indeed, some economic operators reported significant 
but not quantifiable net benefits, while others cited substantial costs ‘merely’ to deal with 
new  requirements  and  thereby  maintain  the  status  quo.  For  example,  it  appears  that,  in 

86 Economisti Associati (2021), page 63. 
87 Economisti Associati (2021), page 56. 
88 Annex V of this SWD, page 91. 

72 

 
                                                           
some Member States, the UCC rules on EIDR made this simplification accessible to more 
economic operators, whereas in others it largely cemented the status quo, and in yet others, 
it  was  reported  that  they  complicated  the  application  of  EIDR  by  introducing  new 
restrictions and limitations. For the time being, the benefits as well as costs that have been 
incurred as a result of these are highly context-dependent.89 

Risk management is the whole of the activities that seek to ensure that customs controls 
are based on electronic risk  analysis with  the purpose of  identifying and  evaluating the 
risks,  and  developing  the  necessary  counter-measures,  based  on  criteria  developed  at 
national  or  Union  level.  The  UCC  provides  the  legal  base  package  to  establish  an  EU 
Common  Risk  Management  Framework.  However,  the  UCC  also  provides  significant 
room for Member State discretion. The focus of the evaluation was on whether the UCC 
provides an adequate framework for achieving a uniform level of controls that ensures the 
safety and security of the EU and its residents.  

The conclusion is that the EU risk management strategy and action plan and other common 
actions90  taken in the years 2016-2020, such as new common risk criteria being introduced 
in several fields or the possibility to define priority control areas and the sharing of risk 
information through risk information forms (RIFs), improved the situation. However, as 
the UCC continues to afford the Member States considerable discretion in how they apply 
the provisions on risk management and controls, there is no uniform application.91  

Coherence with relevant policies and full data sharing at Union level, particularly for 
anti-fraud purposes, would greatly benefit risk management at Union level, as well as 
a risk management and control framework dedicated to prohibitions and restrictions that 
takes into account the particular risks raised by e-commerce. In that respect, in the opinion 
of  Commission  and  customs  officials  interviewed,92  the  simplified  declaration  for  low-
value consignments  (‘super-reduced’ data set H7 declarations) does not  contain enough 
data elements to conduct a proper risk analysis. Similarly, the case study on prohibitions 
and  restrictions  found  that  lacking  coordination  and  interoperability  between  the  IT 
systems of customs and other competent authorities prevented relevant data from being 
shared and used for risk purposes.93 These problems were seen to be holding back the UCC 
from achieving its potential in this area.  

More positively, the deployment of the IT systems ICS2 is expected to enhance safety and 
security through better customs authorities’ access to high-quality data, leading to better 

89 Economisti Associati (2021), page 56. 
90 See the recent Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament – Third Progress 
Report  on  the  implementation  of  the  EU  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  for  customs  risk  management 
COM((2021) 9 final. 

91 Economisti Associati (2021), page 60. 
92 Economisti Associati (2021),   4.1 on e-commerce and 4.2 on non-financial risks. 
93   Additional  synergies  were  indicated  to  potentially  come  from  interoperability  with  IT  systems  for 
reporting on risks, CRMS and the Anti-Fraud Information System (AFIS), and regarding product safety 
with  RAPEX  (the  EU’s  Rapid  Exchange  Information  System  used  to  exchange  information  on 
dangerous products), and the tools of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 

73 

 
                                                           
risk analysis. 94  The Commission is also in the process of developing common risk criteria 
for cash control, and reflecting on common risk criteria for product safety and intellectual 
property  rights  protection.  These  initiatives  should  lead  to  further  contributions  to  the 
general objectives and coherence as implementation of the UCC continues.  

Risk  management  has  not  generated  significant  costs  nor  benefits  for  customs 
administrations in this area. Administrations have incurred costs in order to implement the 
financial risk criteria, but these were not dependent on changes to the provisions introduced 
by the UCC. The costs and benefits of the ongoing deployment of ICS2 are not considered 
here because the system had not been deployed by 2020. 

94 According to the 2019 UCC Work Programme, the first release of ICS2 was deployed on 15 March 2021, 
while release 2 and analytics has a deployment window from Q1 to Q4 2023, and release 3 from Q1 to 
Q4 2024. 

74 

 
 
                                                           
ANNEX  III.  EVALUATION  MATRIX  AND,  WHERE  RELEVANT,  DETAILS  ON  ANSWERS  TO 
THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) 

Table 8: Evaluation questions matrix – Relevance  

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria: extent to 
which… 

Indicators 

  The needs of customs authorities 
/ economic operators / citizens 
are covered by the general and 
specific objectives of the UCC 

2.1 What are the 
needs of 
stakeholders 
in relation to 
the UCC’s 
general and 
specific 
objectives, 
and how have 
these evolved 
since the UCC 
was adopted? 

  The views of customs authorities / 
economic operators were reflected 
in the policy development process  

2.2 In light of 

stakeholder 
needs, does 
the UCC 
provide an 
appropriate 
legislative and 
IT 
framework? 

 Perceived relative importance (now and when the 

UCC was adopted) of each of the UCC’s general and 
specific objectives  

 Level of agreement among stakeholders that the 

UCC general and specific objectives are appropriate  

 Perceived relative importance (now and when the 

UCC was adopted) of issues falling under the UCC’s 
specific and general objectives, namely: 
o  Clearer, more predicable customs rules and 

regulations  

o  More uniform rules and processes across 

different EU Member States 

o  More effective exchange of information between 
national customs administrations and traders 
o  More effective tools to tackle smuggling, illicit 

or fraudulent trade 

o  Better enforcement of EU safety, health and 

environmental rules 

o  Faster and/or simpler customs processes and 

procedures 

o  Greater stability of customs rules (to limit 

adaption costs / allow for long-term planning)  
 Existence of needs specifically related to emerging 
and future challenges in terms of geopolitics (such 
as trade wards and Brexit), changing business 
models and new technologies (such as growing e-
commerce, new detection technologies, 3D printing 
etc.) and unforeseen exceptional circumstances 
(most notably the COVID-19 pandemic)  

 Level of agreement among stakeholders that the 
UCC general and specific objectives cover their 
needs  

 Existence of needs falling outside the scope of the 

UCC’s general and specific objectives 

 Level of stakeholder agreement that consultation 
fora for policy development (namely the Customs 
Expert Group (CEG), Customs Code Committee 
(CCC), Customs Policy Group (CPG), Electronic 
Customs Coordination Group (ECCG) and the Trade 
Contact Group (TCG)) are adequate and sufficiently 
responsive  

 Level of stakeholder agreement that the UCC legal 

and IT package reflects their views and expectations, 
including with regard to amendments and revisions 
after its original adoption  

  Customs authorities / economic 

 Level of stakeholder agreement that the design and 

operators consider the UCC legal 
and IT framework suitable, 
including with regard to emerging 
and future challenges   

structure of the UCC legal and IT framework:  
o  Were appropriate at the time of its adoption  
o  Remain appropriate in light of emerging and 

future challenges  

 Level of stakeholder agreement that the design of 

the UCC legal and IT framework is an improvement 
on its predecessor (the CCC)  

75 

 
 
 
Table 9: Evaluation questions matrix – Effectiveness  

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria: extent to 
which… 

Indicators 

3.1. To what extent has the 
UCC legal package 
contributed to simplifying 
and streamlining customs 
rules, procedures and 
processes? 

3.2. To what extent has the 
UCC legal package 
contributed to strengthening 
legal certainty and 
predictability of customs 
rules, procedures and 
processes? 

  Overall, UCC rules are perceived 

 Level of stakeholder satisfaction 

by relevant stakeholders as simpler 
than their CCC equivalents  

with the extent of simplification and 
streamlining of the UCC legal 
package as a whole 

 Titles / elements / aspects of the 

UCC that are deemed simpler than 
their CCC equivalents 

 Stakeholder expectations as regards 

simplification that has yet to 
materialise (e.g. centralised 
clearance) 

  Specific new / updated rules, 

 Level of stakeholder agreement that 

procedures and processes have 
contributed to a simpler customs 
environment 

specific key changes simplify / 
streamline rules or processes 

 Specific customs processes that have 
been simplified by these changes (for 
authorities and/or traders) 

  Tangible benefits have resulted 

 Tangible effects of specific key 

from simplified / streamlined rules, 
procedures or processes 

  Potential to simplify UCC rules 
further (in line with REFIT 
objectives) 

changes, e.g.: 
o Reduced admin. burden for EOs 
due to comprehensive guarantees 

o Faster customs decisions due to 

harmonised rules 

 Elements / aspects of the UCC that 

stakeholders perceive as excessively 
and unnecessarily complex 

 Potentially unnecessary regulatory 

costs of specific key changes  

  Overall, UCC rules are perceived 

 Level of stakeholder satisfaction 

by relevant stakeholders as 
providing greater legal certainty and 
predictability than their CCC 
equivalents  

with the clarity and accessibility of 
the UCC legal package overall (i.e. 
are the rules easy to find and 
understand?) 

 Level of stakeholder agreement that 
overall, the UCC provides greater 
legal certainty and predictability than 
the CCC 

 Stakeholder expectations as regards 

improvements that have yet to 
materialise 

 Level of stakeholder agreement that 
specific key changes enhance legal 
certainty and predictability 

 Specific customs processes that have 
become more consistent / predictable 
as a result of these changes 

 Rules or processes that have become 
less consistent and/or predictable due 
to the UCC 

 Level of stakeholder agreement that 
overall, customs rules are applied in 
a more harmonised and uniform way 
across the EU MS 

 Tangible effects of specific key 

changes, e.g.: 
o More consistent application of 

AEO criteria across MS 

  Specific new / updated rules have 
contributed to strengthening legal 
certainty, consistency and 
predictability of procedures and 
processes 

  Tangible benefits have resulted 

from clearer, more consistent and 
predictable rules 

76 

 
Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria: extent to 
which… 

Indicators 

o More consistent application of 
rules due to harmonised data 
requirements 

o Fewer irregularities / complaints 
from EOs as regards customs 
decisions 

  The UCC has successfully 

 Extent to which key events or 

addressed current key issues and 
challenges 

developments (e.g. COVID-19) 
could be effectively dealt with under 
existing UCC rules 

3.3. To what extent have the 

  Overall, the UCC legal and IT 

 Level of stakeholder satisfaction 

UCC legal and IT package 
contributed to achieving a 
paperless customs 
environment? 

framework is perceived by relevant 
stakeholders as having facilitated 
progress towards a fully electronic 
customs environment  

  Sufficient progress has been made 
with the deployment of new / 
upgraded IT systems, considering 
the difficulties encountered 

  Tangible benefits have resulted 
from new / upgraded IT systems 

3.4. To what extent has the 

UCC contributed to helping 
EU customs achieve their 
mission? 

  The UCC legal and IT framework 
has contributed to protecting the 
financial interests of the EU and its 
MS, and to protecting them from 
unfair and illegal trade 

77 

with the UCC IT package 

 Level of stakeholder agreement that 

the UCC has contributed to 
achieving a fully paperless customs 
environment 

 Stakeholder expectations as regards 
improvements from systems that 
have yet to be deployed (e.g. ICS2, 
CCI) 

 Level of stakeholder satisfaction 

with the implementation of the UCC 
IT Work Programme, 

 Extent to which key challenges for 
the completion of the remaining IT 
systems are being addressed 

 Level of stakeholder agreement that 
the UCC IT systems that have been 
deployed / upgraded to date 
contribute to: 
o More effective and/or efficient 

customs processes (cp. objectives 
in E-Customs Decision, Art. 2) 
o Better interoperability between 

different systems 

o Reinforced collaboration between 

national customs authorities 
 Tangible effects of specific key 

systems, e.g.: 
o More efficient / consistent 

management of authorisations 
due to CDS 

o Implementation and transition 
costs of CDS (under different 
national approaches) 

 Level of stakeholder agreement that 
progress has been / is being made 
against this objective 

 Extent to which simplification (cp. 
EQ 2.1), enhanced legal certainty 
and predictability (cp. EQ 2.2), 
and/or new / upgraded IT systems 
(cp. EQ 2.3) have contributed to a 
more effective fight against customs 
fraud 

 Tangible effects of specific key 
changes (cp. examples under 
previous EQs) on the fight against 
customs fraud 

 
 
Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria: extent to 
which… 

Indicators 

  The UCC legal and IT framework 
has contributed to ensuring the 
security and safety of the Union and 
its residents, and the protection of 
the environment 

  The UCC legal and IT framework 
has contributed to maintaining a 
proper balance between customs 
controls and facilitation of 
legitimate trade 

 Level of stakeholder agreement that 
progress has been / is being made 
against this objective 

 Extent to which simplification (cp. 
EQ 2.1), enhanced legal certainty 
and predictability (cp. EQ 2.2), 
and/or new / upgraded IT systems 
(cp. EQ 2.3) have contributed to 
more effective risk management 
and/or customs controls 

 Extent to which the UCC equips 
customs to effectively ensure 
compliance with prohibitions and 
restrictions  

 Tangible effects of specific key 
changes (cp. examples under 
previous EQs) on customs’ ability to 
ensure security and safety 

 Level of stakeholder agreement that 
progress has been / is being made 
against this objective 

 Extent to which simplification (cp. 
EQ 2.1), enhanced legal certainty 
and predictability (cp. EQ 2.2), 
and/or new / upgraded IT systems 
(cp. EQ 2.3) have contributed to 
trade facilitation 

 Tangible effects of specific key 
changes (cp. examples under 
previous EQs) on burden reductions 
for economic operators 

 Comparison of the significance of 
any such effects with those on 
effectiveness of controls (cp. the 
judgment criteria above) 

  The balance between positive and 

 Consideration of aggregated costs 

negative effects of the UCC and its 
implementation to date is positive 

and benefits of specific key changes 
(to the extent this is possible) 

 Qualitative analysis of the level of 

progress made against each 
objective, and the main reasons, 
success factors and barriers 

 Identification and exploration of any 
unintended / unexpected impacts 

  The Customs Union Performance 
(CUP) tool and its DCIs and KPIs 
are relevant and useful for assessing 
the performance of the Customs 
Union 

 Extent to which CUP data can be 

used to evaluate the functioning of 
the Customs Union and thereby the 
effectiveness of the UCC 

 Stakeholder assessment of the CUP 

tool 

  The actual data collected and made 
available by MS under the CUP 
contributes to improving the 
functioning of the Customs Union 

  Extent to which the lack of a legal 
basis for a tool for evaluating the 
performances of the Customs Union 
affects one or both of the previous 
criteria 

 Reasons why CUP data and analysis 
have not been used more to identify 
and address performance issues 

 Level of stakeholder support for 
creating a stronger legal basis for 
performance measurement 

78 

3.5. To what extent has the lack 

of accurate and 
comprehensive tools for 
evaluation of the 
performance of customs 
activities had an impact on 
the good functioning of the 
Customs Union, and how 
could it be improved? 

 
 
Table 10: Evaluation questions matrix - Efficiency 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria: extent to which… 

Indicators 

4.1. What are the 

most 
significant 
direct costs and 
benefits for 
stakeholders 
from the rule 
changes and IT 
systems 
introduced by 
the UCC to 
date? 

  Specific new or updated rules and systems 
have generated tangible direct regulatory 
benefits and cost savings (for types of 
costs see below) for customs 
administrations and EOs 

 Tangible benefits of specific key changes 

(as per effectiveness, sub-questions 2.1, 2.2 
and 2.3), e.g.: 
o Reduced admin. burden for EOs due to 

comprehensive guarantees 

o More efficient / consistent management 

of authorisations due to CDS 

  Specific new or updated rules and systems 

 Tangible administrative, compliance, 

have generated tangible direct costs 
(administrative, compliance, hassle or 
enforcement costs) for customs 
administrations and EOs 

hassle or enforcement costs of specific key 
changes (as per effectiveness, sub-
questions 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3) 

 IT development and operations costs of 
specific key new / upgraded systems 

  The UCC legal & IT package as a whole 

 Adaptation / transition costs related to 

4.2. What are the 
main wider, 
indirect costs 
and benefits for 
stakeholders 
from the UCC 
and its 
implementation 
to date? 

and the way it is implemented has 
generated significant adaptation / 
transition costs for customs 
administrations and EOs 

  Specific new or updated rules and systems 
have generated indirect benefits (macro-
economic or societal benefits)  

  Specific new or updated rules and systems 
have generated indirect costs (indirect 
compliance costs or other negative 
impacts) 

other elements (e.g. training, changes to 
business processes) of the UCC legal & IT 
package 

 Evidence of wider benefits resulting from 

specific key changes, e.g.: 
o Non-quantifiable benefits from 

increased certainty / transparency / 
uniformity 

o Non-quantifiable benefits in terms of 

more effective controls 

 Evidence of wider, indirect costs resulting 

from specific key changes, e.g.: 
o Non-quantifiable costs for businesses of 
lack of clarity re the interpretation of 
specific UCC rules or processes 

o Non-quantifiable costs citizens in terms 

of less effective controls 

  The UCC legal & IT package as a whole 

 Stakeholder views on wider, indirect 

and the way it is implemented has 
generated wider benefits and/or costs 

4.3. Overall, are 
the costs 
proportionate 
to the benefits? 
How could the 
UCC’s cost-
effectiveness 
be improved? 

  The UCC legal & IT framework has 
generated significant benefits to date 
  The UCC legal & IT framework is likely 
to generate significant additional benefits 
when fully implemented 
  The costs of the UCC and its 

implementation appear justified in view of 
the benefits 

impacts (benefits and costs related to e.g. 
changes in trade flows) of the UCC legal 
and IT framework 

 Trends in key trade and customs indicators, 

and qualitative exploration of the 
contribution of the UCC to these trends 

 Level of stakeholder agreement that 

overall, the (present and expected future) 
benefits outweigh the costs 

 Benefit-cost ratios for specific key changes 

or systems introduced by the UCC 

 Qualitative considerations related to the 

relationship between benefits and costs of 
the UCC legal & IT framework, and areas 
for improvements  

  Opportunities to minimise costs and 
maximise benefits are being taken 
advantage of  

 Specific provisions, aspects or areas where 
analysis suggests the costs of UCC changes 
outweigh the benefits 

  Further opportunities to minimise costs 

 Stakeholder suggestions and priorities for 

and maximise benefits, including 
simplification and burden reduction, exist    

burden reductions 

 Likely feasibility of addressing these 
priority areas with a view to further 
simplification and burden reduction 

79 

 
 
 
Table 11: Evaluation questions matrix – Coherence   

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria: extent to which… 

Indicators 

4.1 Which non-
customs 
policy areas 
and policies 
are most 
important for 
customs to 
achieve its 
objectives and 
mission? 

4.2 To what 

extent are the 
identified 
policies and 
measures 
coherent with 
the UCC?  

 EU policies and measures in fields other 
than customs affect border management  

 Existence of policies with a high potential 
for mutual reinforcement and / or risk of 
overlap / duplication with the UCC. The 
mapping will cover at least the fields of:  
o  DG TAXUD: combatting tax fraud and 

smuggling; 

o  DG CLIMA climate change ; 
o  DG ENV: environmental protection and 

biodiversity; 

o  DG GROW: intellectual property rights, 
product safety, industrial policy and the 
Single Market; 

o  DG JUSTICE: the protection of the 
EU’s financial interests by means of 
criminal law, data protection;  

o  DG HOME: the fight against terrorism; 
o  OLAF: the fight against fraud; 
o  DG SANTE: the protection of human 

health and animal health; 

o  DG TRADE: international trade.  

  The identified policies and measures 
display aims and objectives that are 
consistent with those of the UCC 

 Level of consistency of aims and objectives 

of the UCC and identified policies and 
measures 

  The rules and processes of the identified 
policies and measures complement and 
mutually enforce those of the UCC 

  Data and information requirements and 
practices complement those of the UCC 

 Level of consistency between UCC rules 

and those of the identified policies  

 Level of formal and practical coordination 
in the implementation of the UCC and 
identified policies  

 Existence of procedural synergies and / or 
redundancies experienced by stakeholders  

 Level of use of data that is collected for 

customs purposes and / or vice versa (e.g. 
for risk analysis) 

 Compatibility of data formats with the UCC 

data model  

 Existence of information or data that 

economic operators can provide only once 
for multiple purposes (or the opposite, 
where similar data must be provided 
multiple times) 

 Level of interoperability between IT 

systems for identified policies and UCC 
systems  

 Existence of protocols for customs and 
authorities responsible for identified 
policies to share information and data  

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 12: Evaluation questions matrix – EU added value    

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria: extent to which… 

Indicators 

6.1. Does the UCC 
provide a 
suitable 
framework for 
the correct and 
consistent 
implementation 
of customs rules 
and processes?  

 The UCC legal provisions enable a 

uniform level of control and application of 
the customs rules and processes; 

 The UCC legal provisions provide the 

Member States with sufficient flexibility 
to adapt to national circumstances and 
needs. 

6.2. Does the UCC 
strike the right 
balance between 
the EU and 
national levels 
when it comes 
to IT 
development 
and 
deployment? 

 The approaches taken to developing and 

implementing the different UCC systems: 
o  Have enabled an acceptable level of 
harmonisation and consistency in the 
implementation of UCC legal 
provisions; 

o  Have facilitated an acceptable level of 
interoperability between systems;   

o  Have allowed for an efficient 

development and implementation of 
the systems; 

o  Have avoided problems with 
integration and functionality;  

o  Have maximised benefits for economic 

operators.  

 Level of consistency in the application of 
the rules and processes covered as part of 
the sample of key issues  

 Level of data sharing and coordination in 
the areas covered by the sample of key 
issues   

 Level of consistency in customs 

performance in the areas covered by the 
sample of key issues 

 Existence or absence of ‘jurisdiction 

shopping’  

 Level of stakeholder agreement that the 
UCC strikes the right balance between 
harmonisation and flexibility with regard 
to national circumstances  

 Level of stakeholder agreement that the 
UCC provides a suitable framework for 
data sharing and coordination  

 Existence of justifications for the areas 

that are not currently harmonised  

 Level of consistency in the implementation 
of legal provisions supported by individual 
UCC systems 

 Level of interoperability between UCC 

systems and (1) customs systems in other 
Member States and (2) national IT 
infrastructure  

 Costs of implementing UCC systems 
developed using different approaches  

 Existence of problems with the integration 
and / or functionality of systems developed 
using different approaches  

 Costs for economic operators to integrate 
and use systems developed using different 
approaches 

 Level of stakeholder agreement that the 
approach taken to different systems was 
appropriate  

 Level of stakeholder agreement with the 

overall allocation of responsibilities for the 
UCC systems  

6.3. To what extent 
and how do the 
joint actions and 
training 
activities funded 
via the Customs 
programme 
support the 
UCC 
implementation?  

 Joint actions and training activities funded 

 Level of success of the Customs 

under the Customs programme: 
o  Have supported the correct and 

uniform implementation of the UCC 
rules and processes;  

o  Have supported the correct and 
efficient development and 
implementation of the UCC systems; 

o  Have facilitated support for more 

ambitious and harmonised approaches 
to legal and IT developments.   

programme’s outputs (discussion fora, 
guidance documents, implementation 
tools, training modules etc.) in supporting 
the development and implementation of 
the UCC legal provisions and the IT 
systems (based on findings from the 
programme evaluation) 

 Level of stakeholder agreement that the 

Customs programme’s actions have been 
integral to developing and implementing 
the UCC legal provisions and IT systems  

 Level of stakeholder agreement that the 
Customs programme’s actions have 
increased the ambitiousness of legal and 
IT developments under the UCC  

81 

 
  
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS [AND, WHERE RELEVANT, TABLE ON SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION] 

82 

 
Table 1. Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation95 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

Other  

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment  

Quantitative 

Comment 

 Cost or Benefit description: 

Not 
applicable 

Costs: 

Direct compliance costs  

1) IT development costs 

Type:  
one-off  

One economic 
operator 
reported 
spending 
€100,000 to 
upgrade a 
system used 
for self-
monitoring its 
AEO status. 

Not available 
for all 
Member 
States. 

One 
authority 
reported 
costs in 
ensuring 
compatibility 
of CDS with 
the national 
IT system of 
nearly 
€350,000 and 
over 11,000 
hours of 
work. 

Significant 
problems for the 
interviewed 
economic 
operators, many 
of whom 
reported having 
had to invest 
heavily in 
adapting their 
own IT systems 
to the new rules 
and 
requirements 
(e.g. for 
upgrading 
internal systems 
to the Customs 
Decision System 
and to the 
temporary 
storage 
systems). 

Costs vary 
significantly 
from system to 
system, and 
from country 
to country, but 
frequently 
amount to 
several million 
euros per 
Member State 
for the most 
significant 
systems (such 
as the updated 
national import 
systems). 
Few MS 
maintaining 
national 
systems 
connected to 
the EU 
systems report 
significant 
ongoing costs, 
due to the 
necessary 
frequent 
updates. 

At EU level, 
around €50 
million from 
Customs 2020 
programme for 
5 IT systems, 
as follows:  
CDS €14.1 
million ( 
annual 
maintenance 
costs €2.8 
million); AEO 
€6 million 
(annual 
maintenance 
costs of EUR 
1.2 million); 
REX €2.6 
million 
(estimated 
annual 
maintenance 
costs 
€500.000; 
EBTI € 3.35 
million 
(estimated 
annual 
maintenance 
costs 
€670.000); 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2) Familiarisation, training and/or 
process adaptation costs 

One-off 

SURV3 €6.99 
million 
(estimated 
annual 
maintenance 
costs €1,40 
million). 

One economic 
operator 
reported 
investing 
€8,000 in staff 
training on the 
AEO 
requirements. 

Overall costs for 
adaptation to 
new rules was 
negligible, 
except for 
customs brokers 
who invested 
heavily in 
adaptation 
process and 
training.  

Overall costs 
for adaptation 
to new rules 
were 
negligible. 
Some MS had 
to adapt 
internal 
processes to 
implement 
UCC.   
Costs related 
to training on 
new rules on 
customs 
decisions, 
guarantees, 
temporary 
storage 
significant 
only for some 
Member 
States. 

In one 
Member 
State, 50 
hours were 
spent on 
training 
officials on 
customs 
decisions, 
with an 
average 
hourly cost 
of €13. 
Another one 
reported 
spending 100 
hours on  
workshops 
for economic 
operators to 
share 
information 
and guidance 
about the 
new rules 

95 Where there is a prior impact assessment, the table should contain as a minimum the costs/benefits identified in the IA with the information gathered on the actual cost/benefit. As available, the 
table should include the monetisation (€) of the costs/benefits based on any quantitative translation of the data (time taken, person days, number of records/equipment/staff etc. affected or 
involved represented in monetary value  – see Standard cost model, for example). For all information presented, it should be included in the comments section whether it relates to all Member 
States or is drawn from a subset. An indication of the robustness of the data should be provided in Annex II on Methodology and analytical models used. 

84 

 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
Not 
applicable 

Enforcement costs:  (costs 
associated with activities linked to the 
implementation of an initiative such 
as monitoring, inspections and 
adjudication/litigation) 

One-off 

Not 
applicable 

Not available 

Indirect costs 

3) Costs of dealing with transitory 
uncertainties (doubts about the 
correct implementation of new rules, 
leading to longer processes, 
duplications, time investment to 
clarify issues etc) 

One-off 

85 

and the CDS 
(average 
hourly fee of 
€14).  

Not applicable 

Not available   Administrative 

costs for the 
mandatory 
reassessment 
of all 
authorisations 
issued before 
2016 by 
customs 
authorities(in 
one case, 
around 1,000 
full audits to 
re-assess all 
AEO 
authorisations 
issued before 
2016). 

Not available  Impossible to 

estimate the 
extent to 
which 
problems of 
interpretation 
occurred, but 
in general 
considered to 
be negligible. 

Impossible to 
estimate the 
extent to which 
problems of 
interpretation 
occurred, but  
costs could be 
non-negligible 
for some 
operator  in 
specific case 
(e.g. German 
AEO was asked 
for detailed info 
about a large 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Costs: 

Direct compliance costs  

1) Administrative burdens (cost of 
information obligations imposed by 
the UCC e.g. submission and 
processing of customs declarations 
and notifications, applications for 
authorisations and for other 
decisions.) 

Type: 
recurrent 

Not 
applicable 

2)  Compliance costs (substantive 
obligations imposed by the UCC on 
businesses, above and beyond the 
mere provision of information) 

recurrent 

number of staff 
by the customs 
authorities as 
part of the re-
assessment of its 
authorisation) 

Not available   Recurring 

Not available  Recurring 

administrative/ 
compliance 
costs of 
customs 
procedures and 
processes have 
not increased 
or decreased 
significantly. 

Not 
applicable 

administrative/ 
compliance 
costs of customs 
procedures and 
processes have 
not increased or 
decreased 
significantly. 

Increased costs 
for operators for 
determining and 
monitoring the 
reference 
amount of 
comprehensive 
guarantees.  
Substantial costs 
to deal with new 
rules on 
simplifications, 
not compensated 
by benefits 
(because most of 
them depend on 
IT 
developments) 

For one 
economic 
operator, 
significant 
increase in the 
time spent per 
guarantee on  
monthly 
monitoring of 
the reference 
amount 
(estimated at 
0.25 FTE to 
comply with 
the new rules) 

Enforcement costs:  (costs 

recurrent  Not 

Not applicable 

Not available   Some costs 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
associated with activities linked to the 
implementation of an initiative such 
as monitoring, inspections and 
adjudication/litigation) 

applicable 

Not available 

Benefits: 

Direct benefits  

recurrent 

1) Rules streamlined and 
rationalised 

Not available  Where rules 
have become 
more rational, 
they are easier 
to apply, with 
potential time 
savings for 
traders, such as 
customs 
decisions, 
guarantees, 
special 
procedures.  

Not available 

Not available  For operators 

2) Clearer and more predictable 
rules 

recurrent 

active in several 
Member States, 
savings from the 
increased use of 
standardised 
processes and 
data; in general, 
clearer rules 

87 

due to the 
increase in the 
number of 
authorisations 
and/or average 
time spent per 
guarantee in 
determining 
and monitoring 
the reference 
amount. 

Not available  Where rules 
have become 
more rational, 
they are easier 
to apply, with 
potential time 
savings for 
customs 
officials to 
enforce (e.g. 
in relation to 
processing 
times and the 
tracking of 
time limits of 
decisions). 

Not available  Customs need 
to invest less 
time to 
understand 
how to apply 
rules, face less 
risks of legal 
challenge and 
find it easier to 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Not available 

lead to better 
informed 
decisions, due to 
less divergent 
practice in the 
different MS. 

Not available  Harmonisation 
of processes via 
IT  centralised 
or interoperable 
systems 
produced 
savings for 
traders (access 
to a single 
central system 
lead to faster 
processes;  
reduced 
processing 
times, reduced 
monitoring 
costs) 

exchange 
information or 
deal with 
applications 
from other 
Member 
States. 

Not available  Harmonised 
processes via 
IT  centralised 
or 
interoperable 
systems 
produced 
savings for 
customs 
(easier 
access/exchan
ge of customs 
data,  reduced 
processing 
times, reduced 
monitoring 
costs and 
reduced fraud 
(and related 
costs) 

Not available 

Not available  Many of the 

Not available  A number of 

expected 
benefits for 
traders in trade 
facilitation 
depend on IT 
systems that are 
yet to become 
operational (e.g. 
centralised 

measures have 
led to tangible 
improvements 
in terms of 
protecting the 
financial 
interests of 
the EU and its 
Member States 

88 

3) Progress toward the paperless 
customs environment  
(via the five trans-European systems 
completed to date CDS, AEO, REX, 
EBTI, SURV3) 

recurrent 

Indirect benefits  
- 

UCC  contribution  to  enabling 
customs to better achieve their 
mission 

recurrent 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
clearance for 
imports, the 
harmonised data 
requirements, 
and the 
possibilities of 
comprehensive 
guarantees 
facilitated by the 
GUM system). 

(e.g.comprehe
nsive 
guarantees), 
but more 
benefits will 
depend on IT 
developments 
(e.g. ICS2 for 
more safety 
and security). 

89 

 
 
Report any simplification, burden reduction and cost savings achieved already by the intervention evaluated, including the points of comparison/ where available (e.g. 
REFIT savings predicted in the IA or other sources).  

TABLE 2:  Simplification and burden reduction (savings already achieved)  

Citizens/Consumers/Workers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

[Other…] _ specify 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  Comment  

Quantitati
ve 

Commen
t 

The UCC has streamlined and rationalised customs rules and procedures in a number of areas to a considerable extent. Where the rules have become more rational 
and well-structured, they are easier to comprehend and apply, with potential time savings for both customs officials and traders having to enforce or comply with said rules. 
This applies in particular to the harmonised, clear and predictable rules on customs decisions and related Customs Decision System (CDS) 

Type: recurrent  

Not applicable  

Monetisation/q
uantification 
not possible 

Monetisatio
n/quantificat
ion not 
possible 

Economic 
operators 
reported the 
process of 
applying for 
decisions has 
become 
significantly 
faster as a result 
of the new rules 
and the CDS 

Member States that 
chose the central 
approach reported 
savings related to 
processing times, 
tracking of time 
limits and 
reduction in the 
time taken to 
consult other 
customs 
administrations in 
case of multi-
country decisions 
(via the CDS). 

The above statement also applied to the centralised IT systems for the implementation of the rules of tariff and customs valuation (REX, EBTI, SURV3) 

Type: recurrent  

Not applicable 

Monetisation/q
uantification 
not possible 

Centralised 
systems ensure 
increased 
harmonisation 
of procedures 
across Member 
States and 
certainty for 
economic 
operators; some 
savings as a 

Savings 
very 
difficult to 
quantify, as 
related 
mainly to 
the fact that 
most 
Member 
States no 
longer need 

REX and EBTI 
reduce the time 
required for 
verification of 
declarations due to 
the harmonisation 
of procedures 
across Member 
States in these 
areas. 

90 

 
               
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
result of 
transitioning 
from a paper-
based to an 
electronic 
system 

to develop 
and 
maintain 
their own 
national 
systems but 
can directly 
access the 
centralised 
EU systems. 

The UCC has contributed to strengthening the legal certainty and predictability of customs rules, procedures and processes in certain areas (in addition to customs 
decisions: guarantees, AEO conditions, some special procedures, harmonised data requirements). By clarifying rules and criteria, it has facilitated their more consistent and 
harmonised interpretation and application across the EU.  

Type: recurrent  

Not applicable 

Monetisation/q
uantification 
not possible 

Traders that are 
active in several 
Member States 
can achieve 
savings from the 
increased use of 
standardised 
processes and 
data, and can 
make better 
informed 
decisions due to 
common 
practices in 
different 
Member States.  

Monetisatio
n/quantificat
ion not 
possible 

Customs officials 
need to invest less 
time in figuring out 
how to apply 
certain rules, are 
subject to a 
reduced risk of 
legal challenge and 
find it easier to 
exchange 
information with 
or deal with 
applications from 
other Member 
States.  

PART II: II Potential simplification and burden reduction (savings) 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Identify further potential simplification and savings that could be achieved with a view to make the initiative more effective and efficient without prejudice to its policy 
objectives96. 

Citizens/Consumers/Workers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

[Other…] _ specify 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitativ
e 

Comment   Quantitativ

Comment 

e 

Customs simplifications (EU level centralised clearance at import, self-assessment):  new simplifications introduced by the UCC with the greatest potential 
benefits for traders have not yet been fully or at all implemented and/or partly depend on future IT developments. Once fully implemented, the expected benefits 
should be available to traders and administrations. 

Type:  recurrent 

Not applicable 

Monetisation/
quantification 
not possible 

Monetisati
on/quantifi
cation not 
possible 

The impact of 
UCC 
simplifications 
varies depending 
on existing 
customs practices 
in the Member 
States prior to the 
UCC (e.g. EIDR 
worked better in 
the MS where this 
existed before 
2016), thus more 
work to ensure 
harmonised 
implementation is 
needed. 
Centralised 
clearance not 
beneficial to 
traders until the 
related IT system 
will be 
completed. 

Uneven 
implementatio
n of EIDR (in 
some MS the 
UCC rules 
made EIDR 
accessible to 
more traders, 
but in others it 
maintained 
status quo, and 
in yet others, it 
reportedly 
complicated 
the application 
of EIDR by 
introducing 
new 
limitations). 
Unclear rules 
on self-
assessment 
prevent its 
application in 
practice. 

96    This assessment is without prejudice to a possible future Impact Assessment. 

92 

 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
Self-assessment 
is awaited by 
traders but clearer 
rules and 
approach are 
lacking to make it 
a reality 

Other most significant expected benefits (e.g. better risk management thanks to ICS2, efficient management of guarantees, harmonised management of 
temporary storage) depend of the completion of relevant IT systems. It is therefore necessary to continue the upgrade/deployment of such systems according to 
the schedule for the missing benefits to materialise. 

Type:  recurrent 

Not applicable 

Monetisation/
quantification 
not possible 

Costs for 
developing 
the IT 
systems 
(e.g. GUM, 
ICS2- not 
covered by 
this 
evaluation) 

The system 
ICS2 is 
expected to 
bring major 
benefits in 
terms of better 
risk 
management 
with regard to 
the entry of 
goods into the 
EU.  

Many of the 
expected 
reductions of the 
burdens for 
traders depend on 
IT developments 
that are yet to be 
completed 
(including the 
harmonised data 
requirements, and 
the possibilities of 
comprehensive 
guarantees 
facilitated by the 
GUM system). 

93 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

Table 13: Timing of consultation activities 

Date 

June-August 2020 

Actions 

Publication of the Evaluation Roadmap and request for 
feedback 

November 2020-February 
2021 

Written questionnaires on the implementation of the UCC 
package to customs authorities and economic operators 

April-July 2021 

Public consultation 

June 2021 

May-August 2021 

September 2021 

February 2022 

Discussion in the Customs Expert Group – general legislation 
section 

Targeted consultation in the selected 10 Member States with 
customs officials, business representatives at EU and national 
level, Commission officials (112 in depth interviews in total) 

Plenary meeting of the Trade Contact Group to discuss views 
of trade representative at EU level on UCC implementation 
and problems 

Discussion in the Customs Expert Group – general legislation 
section 

Stakeholders identified 

  National customs authorities: customs authorities in the EU Member States are the 
main actors responsible for implementing the UCC on the ground, while also playing 
an integral role in the policy development process. In light of the breadth of the UCC, 
this means that the study needed to cover not only EU customs authorities in a general 
sense,  but  to  obtain  detailed  input  concerning  specific  implementation  choices, 
experiences  and  ideas  for  improvement.  Aside  from  participation  in  a  number  of 
project groups supported by the Customs programme, all EU customs authorities are 
represented  in  the  Customs  Expert  Group  (CEG),  which  provided  a  forum  for 
consultation twice during the study as well as facilitating contacts for the study team 
at national level.  

  Economic  operators:  the  international  trade  ecosystem  involves  thousands  of 
economic  operators  who  must  comply  with  customs  rules  and  who  thus  experience 
directly whether envisaged improvements are having the desired effects and whether 
changes to the rules are having positive or negative impacts. Sectors covered include 
logistics,  sea,  air  and  rail  transport,  express  operators,  postal  operators,  shipping, 
airports  and  seaports  operators,  chemicals,  automotive  industry,  manufacturing 
industry.  Their  interests  vary  significantly  depending  on  their  size  (large  firms  or 
SMEs),  sector  and  role  in  the  supply  chain,  highlighting  the  importance  of  broad 
consultation.  Representative  organisations  are  also  important  due  to  their  specialist 
knowledge of the technical issues at stake. For this purpose, the Trade Contact Group 
(TCG) brings together 55 organisations across a wide range of interests. As with the 

94 

 
 
CEG, the TCG was able to act during the study both as a consultation forum and a door 
opener for more extensive contacts.  

  Commission services: officials from DG TAXUD and all other DGs were invited to 
take part in an inter-service steering group (ISSG), which provided ongoing feedback 
on the study as well as facilitating the consultation activities. Since the Commission 
had an important role in steering the study, its views are not summarised and presented 
in this synopsis report. 

  EU citizens were also identified as relevant, given the implications of safe and secure 
borders and the smooth flow of trade. They were invited to provide feedback on the 
inception  impact  assessment  and  to  contribute  to  the  public  consultation.  However, 
very  few  citizens  offered  their  input,  making  it  impossible  to  provide  any  general 
findings from this group. 

  Individual  contributions  were  sent  to  the  Commission  from  two  law  firms, 
respectively from Germany and Netherlands. The first suggested an alignment of the 
definition  of  exporter  in  the  UCC  with  the  definition  included  in  the  dual  use 
regulation.  The  second  suggested  an  amendment  to  Article  116  UCC  in  relation  to 
customs debt. 

Consultation methods and tools  

Stakeholders were consulted via several complementary methods that aimed to ensure the 
right  balance  between  breadth  /  representatives  and  the  need  for  highly  detailed 
information  which  are  described  below.  With  regard  to  validity  and  complementarity 
between the tools, the consultations were carried out so as to  cover the widest  possible 
spectrum  of  potential  interests,  priorities  and  experiences.  Interviews  were  carried  out 
among a large sample of customs authorities and economic operators, with a focus on a 
fairly  large  sample  of  10  Member  States,  while  the  EU-wide  coverage  of  the 
implementation  questionnaire  and  public  consultation  allowed  for  the  results  to  be 
validated among a broader audience. On the side of economic operators, a variety of sectors 
and profiles were covered, as well as both representative groups and individual companies. 
This speaks to a high level of confidence in the results. However, it should be borne in 
mind that most of the stakeholder input is not based on statistically representative sample.  

Evaluation  roadmap.  Prior  to  the  launch  of  the  study,  an  evaluation  roadmap  was 
published and opened for feedback, from 19 June 2020 until 17 July 2020. This received 
four submissions, of which two were from EU-level representative organisations, one from 
an individual company providing legal advice to companies and one from an anonymous 
citizen. The feedback was taken into account in its own right, as well as helping the study 
team to define issues for investigation as part of the other consultation activities.  

Familiarisation interviews. A series of 15 familiarisation interviews were conducted in 
September and October  2020 with  Commission  officials  from all units in DG TAXUD 
Directorate  A  (Customs),  officials  from  other  relevant  units  within  DG  TAXUD,  four 
Member State customs representatives, and two trade representatives.  

Implementation  questionnaire.  The  first  part  of  the  study  entailed  a  comprehensive 
implementation review based primarily on questionnaire responses provided by Member 
State customs authorities and a sample of trade representatives and economic operators. 

95 

 
The questionnaire was launched by email during the second week of November 2020 to 
all Member State customs authorities and to the 55 members of the Trade Contact Group 
(TCG). By mid-February 2021, all 27 Member State customs authorities, and 21 trade 
representatives and economic operators had submitted their response.  

Targeted consultation. The targeted consultation formed the main data collection tool for 
the ‘evaluation’ part of the study, which focused on a set of eight ‘key issues’ where the 
UCC had introduced especially significant changes, as well as including a number of high-
level,  strategic  interviews.  The  targeted  consultation  was  mostly  comprised  of  in-depth 
interactions by videoconference with customs officials and economic operators in a diverse 
sample of 10 Member States, as well as Commission officials. In total, about 112 formal 
interviews were carried out between May and August 2021, while the consultation also 
included  numerous  follow-up  and  ad  hoc  discussions  with  stakeholders  from  the 
Commission  and  other  organisations.  The  breakdown  by  Member  State  and  main 
stakeholder group is presented below, showing a good geographical spread. For economic 
operators, the interviews also achieved a balance between sectors of activity and company 
sizes.  

Table 14: Targeted consultation sample 

No  Member State  Region  Size*  % 

of 
imports 

EU 

% 
of 
exports 

EU 

No. of interviews97 

Customs 
authorities 

Economic 
operators 

1  Germany 

NW  L 

17.8 

2  Netherlands  NW  M 

15.1 

3  France 

NW  L 

9.1 

4 

Italy 

5  Poland 

S 

CE 

L 

L 

8.4 

3.6 

6 

Ireland 

NW  S 

1.5 

7  Sweden 

NW  M 

2.1 

8  Romania 

CE  M 

1.1 

9  Estonia 

CE 

S 

0.2 

10  Luxembourg  NW  S 

0.2 

  Commission  N/A 

Total by stakeholder group 

Grand total  

27.1 

8.2 

10.5 

10.3 

2.3 

3.9 

3 

0.8 

0.2 

0.1 

8 

8 

4 

9 

5 

4 

7 

6 

5 

5 

13 

74 

112 

8 

3 

6 

5 

5 

0 

5 

1 

3 

2 

N/A 

38 

* L > 30 million inhabitants, M 10-30 million inhabitants, S < 10 million inhabitants. 

97 Counted among the interviews are a few stakeholders who preferred to provide their feedback in written 

form. 

96 

 
                                                           
Source: Author’s own elaboration. Size of Member State (population), Eurostat. Share of extra-EU imports 
and exports 2019, Eurostat. 

Public consultation. This was  carried out  between 26 April 2021 and 19 July 2021.  It 
aimed to reach primarily customs stakeholders, thus making it possible to gather feedback 
from more economic operators and customs authorities than would have been possible to 
engage  otherwise  using  targeted  methods.  The  public  consultation  also  provided  an 
opportunity for other stakeholders, primarily EU citizens, but also (non-customs) public 
authorities, third countries, and international organisations, to express their views. In total, 
the public consultation received 126 contributions, with 73% comprised of individual 
businesses or business associations. Despite promoting the consultation in a variety of 
fora, just 13 replies came from ‘EU citizens’, likely owing to the specialised and technical 
nature of the subject matter. This meant that the views of citizens could not be considered 
as  a  group  for  the  analysis.  A  breakdown  of  respondent  types  is  provided  in  the  figure 
below.  

Figure 11: Types of respondents 

Company/business organisation

52%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

21%

EU citizen

Public authority

Non-EU citizen

10%

7%

5%

2%
1%

3%

Source: Public consultation - Interim evaluation of the Union Customs Code (UCC) (2021) 
Base: 126 respondents 

Results of consultation activities 

A summary of the consultation activities is presented below, in terms of the main criteria 
assessed for the study  – implementation, relevance, effectiveness,  efficiency, coherence 
and EU added value.  

Implementation 

National customs authorities. Customs authorities largely expressed satisfaction with the 
state of UCC implementation so far. This showed from answers to the questionnaire, in 
which a large majority (about 75%) considered the UCC legal provisions to be on track. 
Around half said the same for the IT systems, with most of the rest in both cases signalling 
minor  delays.  However,  the  situation  differed  depending  on  the  provisions  in  question. 
Customs authorities considered relatively straightforward and harmonised legal changes 
to  be  fairly  easy  to  implement,  while  having  more  difficulty  with  complex  changes, 
especially the more important innovations compared to the past and / or provisions linked 
to new IT projects. They also pointed to the challenge of dealing with frequent changes 
and an extremely high ‘density’ of initiatives at the same time, including both different 
parts of the UCC and other projects affecting border management. 

97 

 
 
Economic operators. A similar dynamic emerged for economic operators as with customs 
authorities. Few difficulties were noted among the relatively straightforward provisions, 
while  problems  were  concentrated  in  the  more  complex  ones  that  were  not  yet  fully 
implemented or in force. Since these included many of the ‘headline’ innovations of the 
UCC  and  changes  expected  to  most  benefit  economic  operators  (e.g.  EU  centralised 
clearance for import), they expressed less positive views than customs authorities: only a 
third considered implementation of the legal provisions on track, while the remaining two 
thirds pointed to delays, were unsure or did not answer. For the IT systems, the figures 
were 14% and 86%. 

Relevance 

National  customs  authorities.  The  extensive  consultation  with  customs  authorities 
revealed many needs of both a long-term nature (e.g. more uniform  customs rules) and 
related to more immediate events and trends (e.g. Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic). But 
none  of  these  appeared  outside  the  scope  of  the  UCC’s  general  or  specific  objectives, 
indicating that these continued to be relevant for customs authorities. With regard to the 
appropriateness of the UCC legal and IT framework, customs authorities were generally 
positive  in  terms  of  its  structure,  clarity  and  coherence,  as  well  as  visibility  and 
communication.  While  there  was  some  criticism  of  its  complexity,  this  was  considered 
unavoidable because of the nature of the issues at stake. However, it is worth noting that 
customs authorities from a few Member States wanted a ‘revolution’ in customs that would 
move  from  the  current  ‘transaction-based’  approach  to  customs  to  a  ‘system-based’ 
approach focused on regular audits rather than screening every consignment.  

Economic operators. The views of economic operators are well encapsulated in the public 
consultation,  of  which  73%  were  businesses  or  their  representatives.  Asked  about  their 
needs and priorities, respondents pointed to a wide range of needs, all of which are covered 
under the UCC’s objectives (see figure below). This indicated the continued relevance of 
the objectives, as did the fact that respondents considered these aspects to have become 
more  important  during  the  years  since  the  UCC  was  adopted.  Regarding  the 
appropriateness  of  the  UCC  legal  and  IT  framework,  views  largely  mirrored  those  of 
national customs authorities, with interviewees acknowledging that, despite its complexity, 
the UCC is quite well designed and structured.  

Figure 12: As of today, what are your (or your organisation’s) most important needs and 
priorities regarding EU customs rules and processes? 

98 

 
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

More uniform customs rules

Clearer, more predictable customs rules and processes

Simpler customs processes and procedures

Faster customs processes and procedures

More effective exchange of information between
national customs administrations and economic…
Better adaptation of customs rules and processes to
new global, commercial or socio-economic…

Greater stability of customs rules (to limit adaptation
costs)

More effective tools to tackle smuggling, illicit or
fraudulent trade

Better enforcement of EU safety, health and
environmental rules at the external border
More financial and/or human resources to enable
customs authorities to do their job

Other (please specify)

75%

67%

67%

63%

62%

58%

46%

42%

37%

34%

39%

13%

9%

19%

6%

6%

13%

6%

4%

7%

21%

5%

7%

23%

11%

24%

8%

6%

26%

15%

10%

27%

25%

28%

34%

26%

6%

14%

7%

9%

57%

Very important

Quite important

Somewhat important

Not very important

Not important at all

Don't know

Source:  Public  consultation  -  Interim  evaluation  of  the  Union  Customs  Code  (UCC)  (2021);  Base:  126 
respondents 

Effectiveness 

National  customs  authorities.  With regard to  progress  towards its  specific objectives, 
national customs authorities noted substantial, but uneven, progress. This was reflected in 
responses to the implementation questionnaire (see figure below): for all three objectives, 
the vast majority of Member States noted ‘some’ progress, with relatively few indicating 
‘significant’ progress, or indeed ‘little’ or ‘no’ progress.  

Figure 13: How much progress do you think has been made towards the specific objectives 
of the UCC since its substantive provisions entered into force on 1 May 2016? 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

To streamline customs rules, procedures and
processes

24%

To strengthen legal certainty and predictability of
customs rules

12%

To achieve a fully paperless customs environment

24%

76%

76%

72%

0%
0%
0%

8%

0%
4%

0%
4%
0%

Significant progress

Some progress

Very little progress

No progress

Don’t know

Source:  Implementation  questionnaire,  UCC  Interim  evaluation  (2021).  Base:  25  national  customs 
authorities 

99 

 
 
 
 
Regarding  streamlining  and  simplification,  customs  authorities  noted  that,  while  a 
number  of  rules  had  been  rationalised,  structured  and  better  framed  in  the  UCC,  few 
changes had served to make the rules or procedures simpler (aside from in a few specific 
areas). This was largely considered inevitable, given the variety and breadth of customs 
procedures and the complex context.  

In  the  area  of  legal  certainty  and  predictability,  customs  authorities  agreed  that,  to  a 
greater or lesser extent, the UCC legal framework has contributed to the objective, (1) by 
defining certain aspects more clearly and precisely in the legal text (e.g. the AEO criteria 
and conditions); (2) by harmonising elements that had previously been left to the discretion 
of  Member  States  (e.g.  time  limits  for  customs  decisions  to  be  taken,  certain  elements 
regarding guarantees); and (3) indirectly, via the process of the intense deliberations and 
discussions about the UCC involving the Commission and Member States in various fora, 
during  which  many  uncertainties  were  addressed  and  resolved.  However,  authorities 
differed  in  their  assessment  of  the  progress  made:  some  felt  that  legal  certainty  had 
increased  significantly,  while  others  emphasised  that  the  gains  were  only  minor  in  an 
already quite certain and predictable EU customs environment.  

As for the paperless customs environment, all but one Member State responding to the 
questionnaire noted progress towards the objective of achieving a fully paperless customs 
environment. However, around half of the interviewees from customs authorities raised 
important  concerns,  voicing  uncertainty  about  the  future  as  well  as  criticism  of  the 
decisions  taken.  This  was  attributed  to  several  factors,  including  specific  issues 
experienced, doubts about whether all Member States would enact the necessary changes 
and  questions  about  whether  more  advanced  approaches  (such  as  the  above-mentioned 
shift to a ‘system-based’ approach to customs) were needed.  

Views on the general objectives were similar, reflecting their long-term nature as well as 
the partial state of implementation. As per the questionnaire (see figure below), the vast 
majority  of  customs  authorities  noted  relatively  minor  changes  either  ‘no  change’  or 
‘somewhat  better equipped’) in  how well equipped the EU and Member  States were to 
achieve  their  mission  with  regard  to  the  different  objectives.  In  addition,  only  a  few 
respondents felt that the EU and Member States were ‘much better equipped’ to achieve 
its mission vis-à-vis any of the objectives, with most of the rest considering that the EU 
and its Member States were ‘somewhat better equipped’ to achieve their mission. Finally, 
views did not vary much by objective, aside from a slightly greater sense of progress on 
the  objective  to  protect  EU  and  Member  State  financial  interests  [through  the  proper 
collection  of  customs  duties].  Explored  further  in  the  interviews  with  senior  customs 
officials,  it  seemed  that  the  reason  for  noting  only  minor  impacts  was  that  the  most 
important  changes  introduced  by  the  UCC  depended  on  IT  systems  that  were  not  yet 
operational. However, some interviewees also attributed the limited impact so far to delays. 
Regarding the balance between objectives, there was a feeling that the implementation had 
been  focused  on  the  provisions  related  to  improving  trade  and  controls  more  than 
facilitating trade.  

Figure 14: Compared to the situation before May 2016, would you say that the EU and its 
Member States are better or worse equipped to achieve their mission? 

100 

 
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Ensure the safety and security of the Union and its
residents
Protect the financial interest of the Union and its
Member States

12%

12%

Facilitate legitimate trade and enhance the
competitiveness of EU businesses

8%

52%

62%

58%

36%

27%

31%

4%

Much better equipped

Somewhat better equipped No change

A little worse equipped

Much worse equipped

Don’t know

Sources:  Implementation  questionnaire,  UCC  Interim  evaluation  (2021);  Base:  25  national  customs 
authorities 

Economic  operators.  The  views  of  economic  operators  were  consistent  with  customs 
authorities  in  terms  of  progress  towards  the  specific  objectives,  as  shown  in  the  figure 
below, and explained their positions in similar terms. Namely, a degree of  streamlining 
was seen to have occurred, in addition to partial progress towards the paperless customs 
environment. However, the legal framework remained complex, while legal certainty had 
improved in some areas and not in others. 

Figure  14:  In  your  view,  how  much  progress  did  customs  in  the  EU  make  towards  the 
following objectives since the UCC entered into force (2016-2020)? 

Achieve a fully paperless environment (by ensuring all
customs declarations and operations can be made
electronically)

Streamline and simplify customs rules, procedures and
processes

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

21%

44%

17%

6%

13%

13%

41%

21%

13%

13%

Strengthen legal certainty and predictability of customs
rules

11%

38%

22%

13%

15%

Significant progress

Some progress

Very little progress

No progress

Don't know

Source: Public consultation – UCC Interim evaluation (2021); Base: 126 respondents 

Figure 15: To what extent did the UCC and its implementation to date contribute to progress 
towards these objectives? 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
Achieve a fully paperless environment (by ensuring all
customs declarations and operations can be made
electronically)

Streamline and simplify customs rules, procedures and
processes

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

17%

47%

18%

4%

13%

17%

37%

26%

7%

13%

Strengthen legal certainty and predictability of customs
rules

12%

36%

22%

14%

15%

UCC contributed a lot

UCC contributed to some extent UCC contributed a little

UCC did not contribute at all

Don't know

Source: Public consultation – UCC Interim evaluation (2021); Base: 121 respondents 

As  shown  in  the  public  consultation,  economic  operators  also  held  similar  positions  to 
customs  authorities  with  regard  to  the  general  objectives.  Relatively  few  respondents 
identified ‘significant’ progress, while the majority noted ‘some’ or ‘very little’ progress. 
Small proportions also noted ‘no’ progress. Considerable numbers of respondents (from 
15% to 25%) were also unsure, indicating the difficulty for individual businesses of making 
judgements about the high-level achievements of the Customs Union. There was also no 
great variation in views for the different objectives. However, the proportions of ‘extreme’ 
responses noting both ‘significant’ progress and ‘no’ progress, and attributing this to the 
UCC, was larger for the trade facilitation objective than for the others. These contradictory 
responses are difficult to parse using the consultation results alone. But the feedback in the 
interviews  with  economic  operators  indicated  that  views  on  progress  towards  and  the 
balance between the objectives have been shaped by the way the UCC has affected their 
specific operations and supply chains.  

Figure  16:  In  your  view,  how  much  progress  did  customs  in  the  EU  make  towards  the 
following objectives since the UCC entered into force (2016-2020)? 

Facilitating legitimate trade and supporting legitimate
business activity (by making customs procedures as fast
and efficient as possible for trustworthy operators)

Ensuring the security and safety of the EU and its
residents (e.g. by stopping imports of dangerous goods)

Protecting the financial interests of the EU and its
Member States (by ensuring the correct collection of
customs duties)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

10%

40%

21%

15%

15%

10%

39%

21%

10%

21%

9%

39%

18%

9%

25%

Protecting the EU from unfair and illegal trade (e.g. by
seizing counterfeit goods)

7%

40%

17%

13%

23%

Significant progress

Some progress

Very little progress

No progress

Don't know

Source: Public consultation – UCC Interim evaluation (2021); Base: 126 respondents 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 17: To what extent did the UCC and its implementation to date contribute to 
progress towards these objectives? 

Facilitating legitimate trade and supporting legitimate
business activity (by making customs procedures as fast
and efficient as possible for trustworthy operators)

Ensuring the security and safety of the EU and its
residents (e.g. by stopping imports of dangerous goods)

Protecting the financial interests of the EU and its
Member States (by ensuring the correct collection of
customs duties)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

13%

32%

26%

14%

15%

7%

7%

35%

25%

10%

23%

35%

21%

12%

26%

Protecting the EU from unfair and illegal trade (e.g. by
seizing counterfeit goods)

3%

36%

22%

14%

25%

UCC contributed a lot

UCC contributed to some extent UCC contributed a little

UCC did not contribute at all

Don't know

Source: Public consultation – UCC Interim evaluation (2021); Base: 121 respondents 

Efficiency 

National customs authorities. Customs authorities emphasised the very high one-off IT 
development costs needed to implement the UCC, which frequently stretched them to the 
limit. In contrast, other one-off costs, e.g. for familiarisation and training, were considered 
marginal and easily absorbed. In terms of changes to ongoing costs, customs authorities 
pointed  to  some  incremental  cost  reductions.  These  related  to  minor  time  savings  for 
stakeholders as a result of clearer, more rational and well-structured rules and criteria in 
certain areas, and of the IT systems that have been deployed so far, as well as enhanced 
legal  certainty  and  uniformity  of  interpretation  and  application  of  certain  provisions. 
However, they explained that  more substantial  gains  – particularly with  regard to  trade 
facilitation – will have to wait for all of the remaining IT systems to be deployed and the 
related provisions have been implemented.  

With  regard  to  overall  cost  effectiveness,  both  respondents  to  the  implementation 
questionnaire  and  interviewees  highlighted  the  importance  of  digitalisation.  Given  that 
customs authorities are incurring large upfront  costs for systems that have not  yet been 
implemented, they did not feel that the UCC’s benefits yet outweighed the costs. Rather, 
this  would  depend  on  whether  the  pending  IT  projects  proceed  in  line  with  the  current 
timelines and end up fulfilling expectations. Customs authorities also pointed to a tension 
between increased clarity, predictability, streamlining and simplicity in certain areas, and 
insufficient  harmonisation,  non-uniform  interpretation,  and  excessive  complexity  in 
others.  

Economic  operators.  Economic  operators  have  not  borne  IT  development  costs  at 
anywhere near the level of other stakeholders, and thus did not express much concern about 
these,  either  in  interviews  or  the  public  consultation.  Some  operators  participating  in 
interviews described the need to adapt internal processes or structures to cope with or take 

103 

 
 
 
advantage of certain UCC rules, but did not consider these costs disproportionate and felt 
the benefits would outweigh them. As with customs authorities, economic operators did 
not consider recurrent administrative or compliance costs to have increased or decreased 
significantly  since  the  UCC’s  introduction,  although  incremental  savings  had  been 
achieved in certain areas, in part due to the implementation of new IT systems. However, 
they  were  frustrated  with  what  they  described  as  the  slow  place  to  implement  certain 
facilitations  and  IT  systems  that  were  expected  to  generate  concrete  benefits  for  them, 
which they attributed to the partial state of implementation and limited focus on provisions 
focused on trade facilitation.  

Coherence 

National customs authorities. While coherence with other policies was not addressed in 
the  implementation  questionnaire,  customs  officials  were  asked  about  it  both  at  the 
strategic level and in terms of the eight key issues that the evaluation focused on. Senior 
customs  officials  interviewed  generally  agreed  that  the  objectives  to  ensure  safety  and 
security and protect the financial interests of the EU and Member States aligned well with 
the objectives  of other relevant  EU legislation. They  also  felt that neither the UCC nor 
other  EU  legislation  was  designed  in  a  way  that  would  explicitly  preclude  close 
coordination  in  implementation.  Increased  digitalisation  in  the  field  of  customs  via  the 
harmonised data requirements and UCC systems was also seen as a vital way of improving 
risk analysis, which was in turn seen to support the enforcement of other EU policies. With 
regard  to  the  UCC’s  objective  to  facilitate  legitimate  trade,  interviewees  also  did  not 
consider that other competent authorities deliberately sought to hold up trade any more 
than was necessary to enforce their rules in force. However, they also saw themselves as 
bigger  champions  of  trade  facilitation  than  other  competent  authorities.  The  biggest 
concern  was  a  lack  of  practical  coordination  on  the  ground  between  the  authorities 
responsible for various policies, particularly but not only with regard to prohibitions and 
restrictions. All interviewees felt that coordination and collaboration needed to improve, 
with some suggesting that the customs domain could take more of a leading role.  

Economic  operators.  The  views  of  economic  operators  tended  to  echo  customs 
authorities, in  that they  reported no conceptual inconsistency between the objectives of 
customs and other policies, but saw insufficient practical coordination on the ground. This 
was seen to increase compliance costs and cause delays, for reasons such as misaligned 
processes and the need to provide information multiple times or in multiple formats during 
goods clearance. They would welcome any efforts to improve coordination, building on 
initiatives such as the EU Single Window environment for customs.  

EU added value 

National customs authorities. The uniformity mandated in the UCC calls on the national 
customs administrations of the EU to act as though they were one. Many of the customs 
authorities interviewed for the evaluation welcomed the enhanced level of uniformity and 
consistency fostered by the UCC, in areas such as the enhanced clarity and level of detail 
of the rules on decisions upon application (including binding time limits); the more detailed 
and clear conditions to be fulfilled to obtain the AEO status; the more detailed and specific 

104 

 
rules on temporary storage; and the new guarantees regime; as well as the clarification that 
BTI decisions are binding on both  customs and traders, which has reportedly helped to 
reduce the practice of ‘BTI shopping’. However, customs authorities also acknowledged a 
continued lack of uniformity in other areas.  

While  this  was  sometimes  attributed  to  the  partial  state  of  implementation,  there  were 
complaints about a lack of clarity in certain areas. The UCC also contains substantial room 
for  discretion,  e.g.  in  the  field  of  risk  management  and  controls  and  how  AEOs  are 
monitored. Depending on their own national priorities and capabilities, customs authorities 
were  either  satisfied  with  the  current  level  of  flexibility  or  wished  for  further 
harmonisation.  

A similar dynamic held for the IT systems, which are split between a number of central 
systems, decentralised systems and national systems. Customs authorities acknowledged 
weaknesses  to  the  hybrid  model,  and  some  pushed  for  further  centralisation.  However, 
most (especially from larger Member States) pointed to the heavy investments made in 
national customs systems, their alignment with national preferences and prerogatives, and 
the  very  high  transition  costs  that  would  be  expected  from  any  wholesale  drive  for 
centralisation  (not  least  considering  the  costs  and  difficulties  to  implement  the  current 
UCC Work Programme).  

Finally, asked about  the  contribution  of the Customs  programme, many  of the  customs 
officials  who  were  interviewed  as  part  of  the  UCC  evaluation  referenced  joint  actions 
funded by the programme which had been very important and useful to discuss challenges 
with the interpretation and application of many of the new UCC provisions, and to develop 
joint approaches to areas that gave rise to uncertainties or ambiguities. 

Economic operators. In comparison with customs authorities, economic operators tended 
to prefer increased harmonisation, since this would reduce the need for them to adapt to 
differing processes and IT systems across Member States. They expressed more frustration 
than most customs authorities about the lack of uniformity, and about the hybrid approach 
to IT system development, while rating the centralised IT systems that have been deployed 
very highly.

105 

 
ANNEX VI. THE UNION CUSTOMS CODE LEGAL ACTS, IT SYSTEMS AND PLANNING AND 
INTERVENTION LOGIC 

The  UCC  package  is  composed  of  the  main  regulation,  two  delegated  acts,  two 
implementing acts and one implementing decisions. The rules and provisions contained in 
this  package  are  defined,  adopted  and  revised  by  the  Commission  in  close  and  regular 
consultation with representatives of the Member States (mainly via the Customs Expert 
Group and the Customs Code Committee) and of economic operators (mainly via the Trade 
Contact Group). Other important consultation, collaboration and coordination fora include 
the Electronic Customs Coordination Group, as well as numerous project groups under the 
Customs 2020 financial programme on specific actions or issues. 

The UCC package composition and content is described in the following table. 

Table 15: Legal acts of the UCC package 

Legal act 

Adopted 

Key content 

Oct 2013 

Union 
Customs Code 
(UCC) ”basic 
regulation” 

The UCC defines the EU legal framework for  
- 

customs  rules,  such  as  rules  on  application  of  import  and  export 
duties,  customs  debts  and  guarantees,  on  customs  status,  on 
electronic systems and on simplifications 
customs procedures for bringing goods into and taking them out of 
the  customs  territory,  release  for  free  circulation  and  special 
procedures,  as  well  as  rules  for  placing  goods  under  a  customs 
procedure, verification, release and disposal of goods. 

- 

The UCC was amended three times: 
1)  2016:  An  amendment  to  Article  136  UCC  concerning  goods  that 
have temporarily left the customs territory of the Union by sea or 
air.  This  amendment  was  necessary  to  ensure  proper  customs 
supervision  in  the  case  of  certain  goods  which  enter  the  Union 
through one port but continue their journey on a container ship to a 
second port in the Union and are only unloaded in that second port. 
As a result of the amendment, the goods must also be presented to 
customs in that second port.98  

2)  2019: A package of technical amendments, a new article to provide 
relief from import duties on goods repaired or altered in the context 
of international agreements and a provision regarding the inclusion 
of Campione d’Italia in the customs territory. 99 

3)  2019: An amendment to Article 278 UCC to postpone the deadline 
for the upgrade or deployment of some of the UCC IT systems until 
2025.  The  amendment  aims  at  allowing  customs  authorities  and 
economic operators to continue using transitional arrangements for 
the completion of a small number of customs formalities, until 2025 

98 Regulation (EU) 2016/2339 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 amending 
Regulation  (EU)  No  952/2013  laying  down  the  Union  Customs  Code,  as  regards  goods  that  have 
temporarily left the customs territory of the Union by sea or air (OJ L 354, 23.12.2016, p. 32) 

99 Regulation (EU) 2019/474 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 amending 
Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 83, 25.03.2019, p. 38) 

106 

 
 
                                                           
Legal act 

Adopted 

Key content 

UCC 
Delegated 
Act101 

Jul 2015 

at the latest when the new or upgraded IT systems for the completion 
of those formalities will be in place 100 

The Delegated Act supplements certain  non-essential elements of the 
UCC, in provisions mirroring the structure of the UCC (titles, chapters). 
It is regularly amended to better implement the rules established in the 
UCC and adapt them to the needs of economic operators and customs 
administrations. It has been amended eight times: 
1)  2016:  Correction  of  two  provisions  which  accidentally  omitted  a 

facilitation provision of the CCC. 102 

2)  2018: A package of amendments including a revised definition of 
“exporter”; an extension of the time limit for taking a decision on 
repayment or remission of customs duties; the introduction of some 
flexibilities  in  the  customs  formalities  applicable  in  the  case  of 
transactions  between  a  Special  Fiscal  Territory  and  its  mainland 
within  the  same  Member  State  and  making  it  possible  for  EU 
residents to import cars rented outside the EU for short periods such 
as holidays without paying import duties. 103 

3)  2018:  An  amendment  to  Article  84  in  order  to  provide  for  more 
flexibility  in  relation  to  the  criteria  for  a  guarantee  waiver  or  a 
guarantee reduction 104 

4)  2019: Amendments to introduce a new dataset for the declaration of 
certain low-value consignments (e-commerce), by modification of 
the column H7 of Annex B were added. 105 

5)  2020: Amendments to introduce new rules related to the waivers and 
time  limits  to  lodge  an  entry  summary  declaration  (ENS)  and 
transitional  provisions  until  the  release  of  the  Import  Control 
System 2 (ICS2) are deployed. Also a new definition for the intrinsic 
value  was  introduced  as  well  as  some  transitional  provisions  for 
postal  operators  and  Member  States  to  enable  the  smooth 
implementation of the VAT e-commerce rules and the creation of a 

100 Regulation (EU) 2019/632 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 amending 
Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 to prolong the transitional use of means other than the electronic data-
processing techniques provided for in the Union Customs Code (OJ L 111, 25.04.2019, p. 54) 

101 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 
952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain 
provisions of the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 1) 

102 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/651 of 5 April 2016 correcting Delegated Regulation (EU) 
2015/2446 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code (OJ L 111, 27.4.2016, 
p. 1) 

103 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1063 of 16 May 2018 amending and correcting Delegated 
Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code 
(OJ L 192, 30.7.2018, p. 1) 

104 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1118 of 7 June 2018 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 
2015/2446 as regards the conditions for a reduction of the level of the comprehensive guarantee and the 
guarantee waiver (OJ L 204, 13.08.2018, p. 11) 

105 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1143 of 14 March 2019 amending Delegated Regulation 
(EU) 2015/2446 as regards the declaration of certain low-value consignments (OJ L 181, 5.07.2019, p. 
2) 

107 

 
                                                           
Legal act 

Adopted 

Key content 

new  EU  form  302  for  the  movement  of  goods  in  the  context  of 
military operations. 106 

6)  2020:  Amendments  to  adapt  the  time  limits  for  lodging  entry 
summary  and  pre-departure  declarations  for  goods  transporter  by 
sea  into  the  customs  territory  of  the  Union  from  the  United 
Kingdom, in order to allow customs administrations to carry out a 
proper  risk  analysis  for  security  and  safety  purposes,  without 
causing  major  disruption  to  the  logistical  flows  and  processes  of 
economic operators. 107 

7)  2021:  An  amendment  to  replace  Annex  B,  which  contains  the 
common  data  requirements  for  the  exchange  and  storage  of 
information  between  customs  authorities  as  well  as  between 
customs  authorities  and  economic  operators.  The  amendment 
clarifies  the  link  between  the  different  declarations,  notifications 
and proof of the customs status of Union goods set out in Annex B 
and the customs electronic systems provided for in the UCC Work 
Programme,  and  to  give  Member  States  the  possibility  to  use 
transitional  measures  until  the  update  of  the  customs  electronic 
systems  in  accordance  with  the  UCC  Work  Programme  is 
introduced.108 

UCC 
Transitional 
Delegated 
Act109 

UCC 
Implementing 
Act110 

Dec 2015 

This  Act  establishes  transitional  rules  for  operators  and  customs 
authorities  pending  the  upgrade  /  development  of  the  relevant  IT 
systems to create a fully electronic customs environment.  

Nov 2015 

The UCC Implementing Act sets out uniform procedural rules for the 
implementation  of  the  UCC,  in  order  to  ensure  its  harmonised 
application by all Member States. Amended regularly, it also includes 
several annexes, such as Annex B containing formats and codes for the 
common data requirements, templates of certificates, etc. 
The UCC Implementing Act was amended seven times: 
1)  2017: Several provisions were amended to make the rules to issue 
a  long-term  supplier’s  declaration  easier,  to  give  exporters  more 

106 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/877 of 3 April 2020 amending and correcting Delegated 
Regulation  (EU)  2015/2446  supplementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  952/2013,  and  amending  Delegated 
Regulation  (EU)  2016/341  supplementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  952/2013,  laying  down  the  Union 
Customs Code (OJ L 203, 26.06.2020, p. 1) 

107  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2020/2191  of  20  November  2020  amending  Delegated 
Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 as regards the time-limits for lodging entry summary declarations and pre-
departure declarations in case of transport by sea from and to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man (OJ L 434, 23.12.2020, p. 8) 

108 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/234 of 7 December 2020 amending Delegated Regulation 
(EU) 2015/2446 as regards common data  requirements, and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/341 as 
regards the codes to be used in certain forms (OJ L 63, 23.2.2021, p. 1-385) 

109 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/341 of 17 December 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) 
952/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  as  regards  transitional  rules  for  certain 
provisions of the Union Customs Code where the relevant electronic systems are not yet operational and 
amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (OJ L 69, 15.3.2016, p.1) 

110 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules 
for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 558) 

108 

 
                                                           
Legal act 

Adopted 

Key content 

time  to  get  a  REX  number  for  CETA  and  to  ensure  that 
International Road Transport is better secured in financial terms.111 
2)  2018: Notably the procedural rules to facilitate the establishment 

of the preferential origin of goods were amended. 112: 

3)  2019:  Several  provisions  were  amended  mainly  to  expand  the 
information  that  will  be  collected  under  the  EU  Surveillance 
system on goods released for free circulation so that Member States 
can comply with new VAT rules for e-commerce and new rules to 
fight VAT fraud. The new Regulation also modifies some rules on 
the exit of goods from the customs territory of the Union. 113 
4)  2020:  Notably  the  procedural  rules  to  reflect  the  gradual 
deployment  of  ICS2  were  amended  to  determine  the  competent 
customs  office  for  the  release  for  free  circulation  of  certain  low 
value consignments and to introduce some procedural rules for the 
use of EU/NATO form 302 for the movement of military goods. 114 
5)  2020: Article 24 is amended for the sake of clarification in order to 
ensure a uniform implantation of the criterion laid down in Article 
39(a)  UCC,  regarding  the  granting  of  the  status  of  authorised 
economic operator (AEO). 115 

6)  2020:  Modifications  to  Annexes  23-01,  32-01,  32-02,  32-03  and 
72-04  to  take  account  of  the  withdrawal  of  the  United  Kingdom 
from the Union. 116 

7)  2021: Annex B was replaced in order to harmonise the formats and 
codes  for  the  common  data  requirements  for  the  exchange  and 
storage of information required for declarations, notifications and 
proof of the customs status of Union goods. The amendment also 
introduced transitional measures to facilitate the implementation of 
the new data elements in some specific situations. 117 

111  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2017/989  of  8  June  2017  correcting  and  amending 
Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2015/2447  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  implementing  certain 
provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down 
the Union Customs Code (OJ L 149, 13.6.2017, p. 19-56) 

112  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2018/604  of  18  April  2018  amending  Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 as regards the procedural rules to facilitate the establishment in the Union 
of the preferential origin of goods, and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 3510/80 and (EC) No 209/2005 
(OJ L 101, 20.4.2018, p. 22-32). 

113 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1394 of 10 September 2019 amending and correcting 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 as regards certain rules on surveillance for release for free 
circulation and exit from the customs territory of the Union (OJ L 234, 11.9.2019, p. 1-13) 

114  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2020/893  of  29  June  2020  amending  Implementing 
Regulation  (EU)  2015/2447  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  implementing  certain  provisions  of 
Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union 
Customs Code (OJ L 206, 30.6.2020, p. 8-26) 

115 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1727 of 18 November 2020 amending Implementing 
Regulation  (EU)  2015/2447  as  regards  certain  rules  on  Authorised  Economic  Operators  (OJ  L  387, 
19.11.2020, p. 1-2) 

116 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2038 of 10 December 2020 amending Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 as regards the forms for guarantor’s undertakings and the inclusion of air 
transport costs in the customs value, to take account of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the 
Union (OJ L 416, 11.12.2020, p. 48-51) 

117  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2021/235  of  8  February  2021  amending  Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 as regards formats and codes of common data requirements, certain rules 

109 

 
                                                           
Legal act 

Adopted 

Key content 

UCC Work 
Programme118  

Apr 2014 
(revised Apr 
2016 and 
Dec 2019) 

The Work Programme is an implementing decision that (1) defines the 
projects for the 17 electronic systems provided in the UCC; (2) sets 
out an extensive plan for the implementation of those systems; and (3) 
governs  the  periods  during  which  transitional  rules  are  to  be  applied 
(pending  the  deployment  of  the  new  or  upgraded  systems).  Detailed 
information on the status of each IT project is also provided yearly in the 
Multi-Annual Strategic Plan for Customs (MASP-C)119. 

Impl. Reg. on 
Technical 
arrangements 
120 

Jun 2019 

This Regulation lays down rules governing five of the 17 UCC 
electronic systems: CDS, UUM&DS, EBTI, EORI, and EOS/AEO 
(which have been completed). 

Table 16: UCC IT systems included in the UCC Work Programme 

IT project 

Content 

Trans-European Systems= to be developed or upgraded by the Commission in cooperation with the 
Member States, including central systems and systems that have a national component  

Registered Exporter 
System REX  
(new)- centralised system 

Binding tariff information 
BTI (upgrade) – centralised 
system 

Customs decisions system 
CDS (new) – centralised 
system  

Uniform User 
Management & Digital 
Signature  UUM&DS (EU 
Trader Portal, new) – 
centralised system 

Authorised Economic 
Operators – AEO 
(upgrade) – centralised 
system 

makes  available  up-to-date  information  on  both  registered  exporters 
established  in  GSP  countries  (countries  that  benefit  from  the  EU's 
Generalised Scheme of Preferences that provides preferential access to the 
EU market) and European Union operators exporting to GSP countries and 
certain other countries 

aims  to  align  with  the  UCC  the  database  containing  all  binding  tariff 
information that has been issued by customs authorities of Member States 

aims  to  harmonise  across  the  Union  the  processes  for  customs  decisions 
related 
legislation,  by  facilitating 
consultations during the decision-taking period and the management of the 
authorisations process 

the  application  of  customs 

to 

aims  to  provide  direct  and  EU-harmonised  trader  access  to  different 
electronic customs systems as defined in the UCC 

aims  to  improve  the  business  processes  related  to  AEO  applications  and 
authorisations taking account of the UCC changes 

on surveillance and the competent customs office for placing goods under a customs procedure (OJ L 
63, 23.2.2021, p. 386-531) 

118 Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151 of 13 December 2019 establishing the latest version 
of the Work Programme relating to the development and deployment of the electronic systems provided 
for  in  the  Union  Customs  Code  (OJ  L  325,  16.12.2019,  p.  68).  See  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019D2151&from=EN  

119 See MASP-C, 2019 revision, particularly the Consolidated Project Fiches in Annex 2. 
120 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/414 of 8 March 2021 on technical arrangements for 
developing, maintaining and employing electronic systems for the exchange and storage of information 
under Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 81, 9.3.2021, 
p. 37–64) 

110 

 
 
 
                                                           
IT project 

Content 

Economic Operator 
Registration and 
Identification System –
EORI (upgrade) – 
centralised system 

Common customs tariff 
and surveillance – 
Surveillance (upgrade) – 
centralised system 

Proof of Union Status  
PoUS (new) – centralised 
system 

New Computerised 
Transit System                       
NCTS (upgrade) – 
decentralised Trans-
European movement system  

Automated Export 
System – AES  
(upgrade) –  decentralised 
Trans-European movement 
system 

Standardised Exchange of 
Information for Special 
Procedures – INF (new) – 
centralised system 

Centralised Clearance for 
Import  - CCI (new) – 
decentralised Trans-
European movement system 

minor  upgrade  of  the  existing  system  that  enables  the  registration  and 
identification of economic operators of the Union and third country persons 
active in customs matters in the Union 

Upgrade of the existing database that records and centralises all EU trade 
data (imports and exports) provided on a daily basis by the national customs 
authorities; 

will store, manage and retrieve all declarations that traders provide to prove 
the Union status of their goods 

aligns the existing transit system to the new UCC requirements such as the 
registration of "en route" events, the alignment of information exchanges to 
UCC data requirements and the upgrade and development of interfaces with 
other systems 

aims  to  implement  the  UCC  requirements  for  export  and  exit  of  goods 
(upgrade  of  both  the  existing  trans-European  system  and  of  the  existing 
National Export Systems 

new system to support and streamline the processes of data  management 
and the electronic handling of data in the domain of Special Procedures 

aims  to  coordinate  between  relevant  customs  offices  the  processing  of 
customs  declarations  and  the  authorisation  to  release  goods  so  that 
economic operators can centralise their dealings with customs authorities 

Guarantee Management – 
GUM (new): – centralised 
system 

aims  to  allow  a  real  time  allocation  and  management  across  the  EU  of 
comprehensive customs guarantees that traders lodge where there are risks 
that duties might not be paid 

Import Control System – 
ICS (upgrade): - Hybrid 
system 

aims  to strengthen the safety and security of the supply chain by means of 
improving  data  quality,  data  filing,  data  availability  and  data  sharing  in 
regards  to  Entry  Summary  Declarations  and  related  risk  and  control 
information 

National Systems to be developed by Member States 

Harmonisation and 
facilitation of special 
procedures – SP 

national  systems  will  have  to  implement  all  UCC  changes  required  for 
customs  warehousing,  end-use,  temporary  admission  and  inward  and 
outward processing 

Notification of Arrival, 
Presentation Notification 
and Temporary Storage - 
NA, PN, TS  

defines  the  automation  of  processes  at  national  level  in  respect  of 
Notifications of Arrival of means of transport, Presentation of goods and 
declarations for Temporary Storage, as described in the UCC, and supports 
harmonisation  across  the  Member  States  as  regards  the  data  exchange 
between trade and customs 

National Import Systems 
– NIS 

aim at implementing all process and data requirements deriving from the 
UCC which relate to imports 

111 

 
 
The 2019 version of the Work Programme takes into account this amendment of Article 
278 UCC, which also includes the obligation for the Commission to publish annual reports 
on  the  progress  in  developing  the  electronic  systems.121  The  picture  below  shows  the 
current IT planning, with the systems already deployed in green and those that are being 
gradually developed in grey. 

Figure 18: current planning of the UCC IT systems 

The intervention logic set out below provides a graphical representation of the functioning 
of  the  UCC  package  towards  its  objectives.  As  mentioned  in  the  introduction,  the 
evaluation focuses on the implementation of the package, according to the political request 
on which the exercise is based. In addition, it should be noted that the alternative approach 
– developing an intervention logic for the UCC per se – would be very challenging to do, 
due  to  the  extremely  broad  scope  of  the  intervention.  The  UCC  provides  for  a 
comprehensive legal and IT framework governing nearly all aspects of how EU customs 
operate, and covering all customs domains, procedures, declarations, decisions, systems, 
etc. Thus, attempting to depict all of the provisions, their relationships, causal linkages, 
and desired results in a readable visual format would be a very complex undertaking, the 
usefulness of which appears doubtful in proportion to the effort required.  

The  diagram  below  shows  the  main  inputs  (including  the  elements  of  the  legal  and  IT 
package  as  well  as  the  human,  financial  and  technical  resources  required  for  its 
to  carry  out,  support,  coordinate  and  monitor 
implementation), 
implementation;  the  direct  outputs  of  these  activities;  and,  at  a  relatively  high  level  of 

the  activities 

121 For 2020, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council pursuant to Article 
278a of the Union Customs Code, on progress in developing the electronic systems provided for under 
the Code, COM/2020/806 final. 

112 

 
 
                                                           
aggregation, the main expected outcomes and ultimate impacts. It also contextualises these 
by  highlighting  the  main  objectives  (left-hand  side  of  the  diagram)  and  some  key 
assumptions needed for successful implementation (top of the diagram). 

Figure 19: Intervention logic of the implementation of the UCC 

113 

 
 
114 

 
 
ANNEX VII. UCC STATE OF IMPLEMENTATION 

Figure 20: Difficulties with implementation according to Member State customs authorities 

Figure 21: Difficulties with implementation according to economic operators  

115 

 
 
 
Source: Economisti Associati (2021) 

Figure 22: Difficulties with implementation according to Member State customs 
authorities 

Bars in solid colour= IT systems that have already been deployed 
Dotted bars= IT systems not yet deployed 

Figure 23: Difficulties with implementation according to economic operators 

Source: Economisti Associati (2021) 

116