CELEX: 62013CA0334
Language: en
Date: 2014-10-16 00:00:00
Title: Case C-334/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Nordex Food A/S v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 — Export refunds — Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 — System of export licences — Export declaration submitted without an export licence — Period granted by the customs office of export — Customs documents proving the arrival of the exported goods in the country of destination — Forged documents — Rectification of irregularities — Application of the penalty referred to in Article 51 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999)

22.12.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 462/8
            
         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Nordex Food A/S v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-334/13) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 - Export refunds - Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 - System of export licences - Export declaration submitted without an export licence - Period granted by the customs office of export - Customs documents proving the arrival of the exported goods in the country of destination - Forged documents - Rectification of irregularities - Application of the penalty referred to in Article 51 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999))
   (2014/C 462/13)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Bundesfinanzhof
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Nordex Food A/S
   
      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2299/2001 of 26 November 2001, read in conjunction with Article 24 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 of 9 June 2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products, must be interpreted as not precluding the grant of an export refund in specific circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, in which the export took place without an export licence, whose existence was however established at the time the export declaration was made and which was presented, by the exporter, within the additional period of one week granted for that purpose by the competent customs office.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Articles 49 and 50 of Regulation No 800/1999, as amended by Regulation No 2299/2001, must be interpreted as meaning that, save in cases of force majeure, an exporter who has presented, in order to prove the arrival of the exported goods in the country of destination, customs documents that are later shown to be forged, may not, after periods laid down in those articles have expired, present, in the course of pending judicial proceedings relating to the grant of the export refund, valid customs documents, even though the grant of the export refund was delayed for reasons other than those relating to the proof of arrival of those goods.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               On a proper construction of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 800/1999, as amended by Regulation No 2299/2001, the penalty provided for in that provision is incurred when the exporter presented, within the prescribed periods, documents proving the arrival of the exported goods in the country of destination that were shown to have been forged, even though it is apparent from the valid documents produced during the proceedings that the export refund applied for corresponds to that which would have had to be granted.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.