CELEX: 62010CJ0454
Language: en
Date: 2011-11-17
Title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 November 2011. # Oliver Jestel v Hauptzollamt Aachen. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundesfinanzhof - Germany. # Community Customs Code - Second indent of Article 202(3) - Customs debt incurred through unlawful introduction of goods - Meaning of ‘debtor’ - Participation in unlawful introduction - Person acting as intermediary in conclusion of contracts of sale relating to goods introduced unlawfully. # Case C-454/10.

Case C-454/10
      Oliver Jestel
      v
      Hauptzollamt Aachen
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof)
      (Community Customs Code – Second indent of Article 202(3) – Customs debt incurred through unlawful introduction of goods – Meaning of ‘debtor’ – Participation in unlawful introduction – Person acting as intermediary in conclusion of contracts of sale relating to goods introduced unlawfully)
      Summary of the Judgment
      Customs union – Customs debt incurred through unlawful introduction of goods – Meaning of ‘debtor’
      (Council regulation No 2913/92, Art. 202(3))
      The second indent of Article 202(3) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as
         meaning that a person who, without being directly involved in the introduction of goods, participated in that introduction
         as intermediary in the conclusion of contracts of sale relating to those goods must be considered to be a debtor of a customs
         debt incurred through the unlawful introduction of goods into the customs territory of the European Union where that person
         was aware, or should reasonably have been aware, that that introduction was unlawful, which it is a matter for the national
         court to determine.
      
      In that regard, it should be noted that the phrase ‘should reasonably have been aware’ in the second indent of Article 202(3)
         of the Customs Code relates to the conduct of a reasonably circumspect and diligent trader. Moreover, it is important to know
         whether the intermediary undertook all the steps that could reasonably be expected of him to ensure that the goods concerned
         would not be unlawfully introduced, in particular, whether he informed the supplier of its obligation to declare the goods
         to customs. The information available to the intermediary or of which he should reasonably have been aware, particularly because
         of his contractual obligations, must also be taken into account. In that respect, it is also important to know whether the
         import duties to be paid were indicated on the contracts of sale or on other documentation available to the intermediary,
         which would suggest that the introduction of the goods into the territory of the European Union would be carried out in a
         lawful manner. Finally, the period during which the intermediary provided his services to the seller of the goods concerned
         may be taken into account.
      
      (see paras 22, 24-27, operative part)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)
      17 November 2011 (*)
      
      (Community Customs Code – Second indent of Article 202(3) – Customs debt incurred through unlawful introduction of goods – Meaning of ‘debtor’ – Participation in unlawful introduction – Person acting as intermediary in conclusion of contracts of sale relating to goods introduced unlawfully)
      In Case C‑454/10,
      REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 3 September
         2010, received at the Court on 17 September 2010, in the proceedings
      
      Oliver Jestel
      v
      Hauptzollamt Aachen,
      THE COURT (Second Chamber),
      composed of J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur), A. Rosas, A. Ó Caoimh and A. Arabadjiev,
         Judges,
      
      Advocate General: P. Cruz Villalón,
      Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
      having regard to the written procedure,
      after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
      –        the Czech Government, by M. Smolek and K. Havlíčková, acting as Agents,
      –        the European Commission, by B.-R. Killmann and L. Bouyon, acting as Agents,
      after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 14 July 2011,
      gives the following
      Judgment
      1        This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the second indent of Article 202(3) of Council Regulation
         (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1, ‘the Customs Code’).
      
      2        The reference has been made in proceedings between Mr Jestel and the Hauptzollamt Aachen (Principal Customs Office, Aachen,
         ‘the Hauptzollamt’) regarding the payment of a customs debt arising from the unlawful introduction of goods into the customs
         territory of the European Union.
      
       Legal context
      3        Article 202 of the Customs Code provides:
      
      ‘1.      A customs debt on importation shall be incurred through:
      (a)       the unlawful introduction into the customs territory of the Community of goods liable to import duties
      …
      For the purpose of this Article, unlawful introduction means any introduction in violation of the provisions of Articles 38
         to 41 and the second indent of Article 177.
      
      2.      The customs debt shall be incurred at the moment when the goods are unlawfully introduced.
      3.      The debtors shall be:
      –        the person who introduced such goods unlawfully,
      –        any persons who participated in the unlawful introduction of the goods and who were aware or should reasonably have been aware
         that such introduction was unlawful, and
      
      –        any persons who acquired or held the goods in question and who were aware or should reasonably have been aware at the time
         of acquiring or receiving the goods that they had been introduced unlawfully.’
      
       The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
      4        According to the decision to refer and the documents lodged with the Court, between April 2004 and May 2006, Mr Jestel auctioned
         goods originating in China on the internet platform eBay, where he operated two online shops. He acted as intermediary in
         the conclusion of the contracts of sale of those goods and collected the sale price. The setting of prices and the procuring
         of the goods was the responsibility of the Chinese supplier. The supplier delivered the goods directly to the purchasers based
         in Germany by post.
      
      5        The goods at issue in the main proceedings were shipped to the purchasers without the goods first being presented to customs
         and without import duties being levied, apparently on the strength of inaccurate declarations by the supplier as to the contents
         and value of the shipment.
      
      6        The Hauptzollamt issued a notice of assessment to tax against Mr Jestel for customs duties of approximately EUR 10 000 and
         value added tax on importation of approximately EUR 21 000. It claimed, in particular, that Mr Jestel participated in the
         unlawful introduction of goods into the customs territory of the European Union, within the meaning of the second indent of
         Article 202(3) of the Customs Code. The administrative complaint brought against that notice was not upheld.
      
      7        The Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf Finance Court) dismissed the appeal brought by Mr Jestel against the decision of
         the Hauptzollamt. It is apparent from the documents before the Court that the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf held that, first, the
         introduction of the goods concerned was unlawful under Article 202 of the Customs Code in that it was carried out in breach
         of certain provisions in Articles 38 to 41 of the code and in that the exemption, as regards postal consignments, from the
         obligation to present goods to customs did not apply to goods which had an actual value exceeding EUR 22. Second, Mr Jestel
         was the debtor liable to pay the customs debt pursuant, inter alia, to the second indent of Article 202(3) of the code.
      
      8        The national court, ruling on the appeal on a point of law against that judgment, notes that, according to Mr Jestel, the
         conclusion of the contracts of sale on eBay and the transmission of the purchasers’ names and addresses to the Chinese supplier,
         acts which significantly pre-dated the shipping of the goods and which are relevant only as the legal cause of that shipping,
         do not represent participation in the unlawful introduction of goods within the meaning of the second indent of Article 202(3)
         of the Customs Code.
      
      9        The national court notes that the question whether Mr Jestel expected that the imports at issue in the main proceedings would
         be unlawful or whether, as he says, he had assumed that they would be carried out in a lawful manner despite some doubts he
         had entertained in that regard, has not yet been decided. However, that court considers it doubtful that, in circumstances
         such as those in the main proceedings, a person becomes a debtor liable to pay a customs debt under that provision, even where
         that person envisages, or indeed expects, that the seller will proceed to introduce the goods concerned unlawfully into the
         customs territory of the European Union.
      
      10      In those circumstances, the Bundesfinanzhof decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court
         of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
      
      ‘(1)      Does a person become a debtor liable to pay customs duties because of “participation” in the unlawful introduction of goods
         into the customs territory of the European Union according to the second indent of Article 202(3) of [the Customs Code] where
         that person, without being directly involved in the introduction of goods, arranges the conclusion of the contracts to purchase
         the goods concerned and therefore envisages that the seller will possibly deliver the goods or part of the goods in such a
         way as to evade import duties?
      
      (2)      If appropriate, is it sufficient that he considers this to be conceivable, or does he only become a debtor if he fully expects
         that this will happen?’
      
       Consideration of the questions referred
      11      By its questions, which fall to be examined together, the national court asks, in essence, whether the second indent of Article
         202(3) of the Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that a person who, without being directly involved in the introduction
         of goods, acted as intermediary in the conclusion of contracts of sale relating to the goods, must be considered to have participated
         in the unlawful introduction of goods into the customs territory of the European Union. If so, that court raises the question
         whether such a person only becomes a debtor of a customs debt under that provision if he expects the goods concerned to be
         unlawfully introduced or whether it is sufficient for him merely to consider such an introduction conceivable.
      
      12      It should be noted to begin with that the European Union legislature intended, since the entry into force of the Customs Code,
         to lay down exhaustively the conditions for determining who are the debtors of customs debt (see Case C‑414/02 Spedition Ulustrans [2004] ECR I‑8633, paragraph 39; Case C‑195/03 Papismedov and Others [2005] ECR I‑1667, paragraph 38; and Case C‑140/04 United Antwerp Maritime Agencies and Seaport Terminals [2005] ECR I‑8245, paragraph 30). In the case of a customs debt incurred through the unlawful introduction of goods into the
         customs territory of the European Union, as referred to in Article 202 of the code, the persons capable of being debtors are
         listed in paragraph 3 of that article.
      
      13      According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, it is clear from the wording of Article 202(3) that the European Union
         legislature intended to give a broad definition of the persons capable of being regarded as debtors of the customs debt, in
         cases of unlawful introduction of goods subject to import duties (see Spedition Ulustrans, paragraph 25, and Papismedov and Others, paragraph 38).
      
      14      It must be stated next that a person such as Mr Jestel, in so far as his activity was limited to involvement in the conclusion
         of contracts of sale of the goods, collecting the sale price and communicating the names and addresses of the purchasers to
         the supplier of those goods, is not capable of being a debtor of the customs debt pursuant to the first and third indents
         of Article 202(3). Those indents concern, respectively, the person who in practical terms introduced the goods without declaring
         them (see Joined Cases C‑238/02 and C‑246/02 Viluckas and Jonusas [2004] ECR I‑2141, paragraph 29, and Papismedov and Others, paragraph 39) and the persons who acquired or held the goods after their introduction.
      
      15      Under the second indent of Article 202(3) of the Customs Code, any persons who participated in the unlawful introduction of
         goods into the territory of the European Union who were aware, or should reasonably have been aware, that such introduction
         was unlawful are debtors. Consequently, treatment as a debtor under that provision is subject to two conditions the first
         of which is objective, namely participation in that introduction, and the second subjective, namely that the persons participated
         with a certain degree of knowledge in the unlawful introduction (see, to that effect, Papismedov and Others, paragraph 40).
      
      16      As regards, first, the objective condition in that provision, the Court has held that those persons who have taken some part
         in an unlawful introduction have participated in such an introduction (Spedition Ulustrans, paragraph 27).
      
      17      In that regard, as the Advocate General pointed out at point 39 of his opinion, the legislature did not specify that the persons
         covered by the second indent of Article 202(3) are solely those who directly contributed to the unlawful introduction. They
         may also be those involved in acts related to the introduction.
      
      18      As regards the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, it should be noted that both the conclusion of the contracts
         of sale at issue and the delivery of the goods which are the subject of those contracts are elements of a single transaction,
         namely the sale of such goods. Therefore, a person, such as Mr Jestel in the main proceedings, who, without being directly
         involved in the unlawful introduction of the goods into the customs territory of the European Union, acted as intermediary
         in the conclusion of contracts of sale relating to those goods must be considered to have participated in that introduction
         within the meaning of the second indent of Article 202(3) of the Customs Code.
      
      19      Second, as regards the subjective condition in that provision, the national court asks whether, in order for that condition
         to be fulfilled, it is necessary for the participants covered by the provision to expect the introduction of goods to be unlawful
         or whether it is sufficient for them to consider such an introduction to be conceivable. That question related to the particular
         circumstances of the case in the main proceedings where the unlawful introduction took place after the act of participation.
      
      20      However, the subjective condition set out in the second indent of Article 202(3) of the Customs Code is based on the requirement
         that the persons who participated in that introduction were aware or should reasonably have been aware that it was unlawful,
         which suggests they had, or should reasonably have had, knowledge of the existence of one or several breaches.
      
      21      Since that condition concerns considerations of a factual nature, in the light of the division of powers between the Courts
         of the European Union and the national courts, it is for the national court to determine whether that condition is satisfied
         in the main proceedings (see, to that effect, Papismedov and Others, paragraph 41). When giving a preliminary ruling on a reference, however, the Court may, in appropriate cases, give clarifications
         to guide the national court in its decision (see, to that effect, Case C‑446/07 Severi [2009] ECR I‑8041, paragraph 60, and Case C‑232/09 Danosa [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 34).
      
      22      In that regard, first, it should be noted that the phrase ‘should reasonably have been aware’ in the second indent of Article
         202(3) of the Customs Code relates to the conduct of a reasonably circumspect and diligent trader.
      
      23      Second, it is for the national court to carry out an overall assessment of the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings.
      
      24      Thus, in particular, is must be held that a person acting as intermediary in the conclusion of contracts of sale must know
         that the delivery of goods from a third State into the European Union gives rise to an obligation to pay import duties. It
         is therefore relevant to ask whether the intermediary undertook all the steps which could reasonably be expected of him to
         ensure that the goods concerned would not be unlawfully introduced, in particular whether he informed the supplier of its
         obligation to declare the goods to customs.
      
      25      The information that was available to the intermediary or of which he should reasonably have been aware must also be taken
         into account, particularly because of his contractual obligations. In that respect, it is also important to know whether the
         import duties to be paid were indicated on the contracts of sale or on other documentation available to the intermediary,
         which would suggest that the introduction of the goods into the territory of the European Union would be carried out in a
         lawful manner.
      
      26      In addition, the period during which the intermediary provided his services to the seller of the goods concerned may be taken
         into account. If the intermediary provided his services over a long period it may appear unlikely that he did not have the
         opportunity to become aware of the practices of the seller concerning the delivery of those goods.
      
      27      In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the questions referred is that the second indent of Article 202(3) of the Customs
         Code must be interpreted as meaning that a person who, without being directly involved in the introduction of goods, participated
         in the introduction as intermediary in the conclusion of contracts of sale relating to those goods must be considered to be
         a debtor of a customs debt incurred through the unlawful introduction of goods into the customs territory of the European
         Union where that person was aware, or should reasonably have been aware, that that introduction was unlawful, which is a matter
         for the national court to determine.
      
       Costs
      28      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court,
         the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs
         of those parties, are not recoverable.
      
      On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby rules:
      The second indent of Article 202(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs
            Code must be interpreted as meaning that a person who, without being directly involved in the introduction of goods, participated
            in the introduction as intermediary in the conclusion of contracts of sale relating to those goods must be considered to be
            a debtor of a customs debt incurred through the unlawful introduction of goods into the customs territory of the European
            Union where that person was aware, or should reasonably have been aware, that that introduction was unlawful, which is a matter
            for the national court to determine.
      [Signatures]
      * Language of the case: German.