CELEX: 62008CN0550
Language: en
Date: 2008-12-11 00:00:00
Title: Case C-550/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 11 December 2008 — British American Tobacco (Germany) GmbH v Hauptzollamt Schweinfurt

21.3.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 69/19
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 11 December 2008 — British American Tobacco (Germany) GmbH v Hauptzollamt Schweinfurt
   (Case C-550/08)
   (2009/C 69/34)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht München
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: British American Tobacco (Germany) GmbH
   
      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Schweinfurt
   Questions referred
   
               1.
            
            
               Must the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 5(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (1) be interpreted as meaning that non-Community goods subject to excise duty which have been placed under an inward processing procedure within the terms of Article 84(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (Customs Code) are to be deemed to be subject to duty-suspension arrangements even if they are produced, under an inward processing procedure, from goods which are not subject to excise duty only after the importation of those goods and therefore, in accordance with the 15th recital in the preamble to Directive 92/12/EEC, when they are being moved there is no need for the accompanying document referred to in Article 18(1) of Directive 92/12/EEC to be used?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If the first question is to be answered in the negative:
               Must Article 15(4) of Directive 92/12/EEC be interpreted as meaning that proof that the consignee has taken delivery of the goods may also be provided otherwise than by means of the accompanying document referred to in Article 18 of Directive 92/12/EEC?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.