CELEX: 62019CA0097
Language: en
Date: 2020-07-16 00:00:00
Title: Case C-97/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finance Court Düsseldorf — Germany) — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Köln (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Code — Customs declarations — Article 78 of that code — Revision of the customs declaration — Name of the declarant — Amendment of information relating to the identity of the declarant seeking to show that there is a relationship of indirect representation — Indirect representation of the person who has obtained an import licence)

7.9.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 297/13
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finance Court Düsseldorf — Germany) — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Köln
      (Case C-97/19) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Code - Customs declarations - Article 78 of that code - Revision of the customs declaration - Name of the declarant - Amendment of information relating to the identity of the declarant seeking to show that there is a relationship of indirect representation - Indirect representation of the person who has obtained an import licence)
      (2020/C 297/16)
      Language of the case: German
      
         Referring court
      
      Finanzgericht Düsseldorf
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG
      
         Defendant: Hauptzollamt Köln
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      Article 78(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities may grant an application for amendment of a customs declaration seeking to show that there is a relationship of indirect representation between, on the one hand, a person in possession of a power of attorney who has mistakenly indicated that it was acting exclusively in its own name and on its own behalf, even though it has received such a power from the person holding the import licence, and, on the other hand, the person who has granted the power of attorney and on whose behalf the declaration has been made.
      
         (1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.