CELEX: C2006/131/27
Language: en
Date: 2006-06-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-293/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  9 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam) — Beemsterboer Coldstore Services BV v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Arnhem (Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Application ratione temporis — System of administrative cooperation involving the authorities of a non-member country — Meaning of  incorrect certificate  — Burden of proof)

3.6.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 131/15
            
         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam) — Beemsterboer Coldstore Services BV v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Arnhem
   (Case C-293/04) (1)
   
   (Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties - Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Application ratione temporis - System of administrative cooperation involving the authorities of a non-member country - Meaning of ‘incorrect certificate’ - Burden of proof)
   (2006/C 131/27)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands)
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: Beemsterboer Coldstore Services BV
   
      Defendant: Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Arnhem
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Interpretation of Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 (OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17) — Post-clearance recovery of duty resulting from a customs debt which arose before the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 against an importer who submitted EUR. 1 certificates of origin indicating an origin of the goods which could not be established upon a subsequent verification
   Operative part of the judgment
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, applies to a customs debt which was incurred and the post-clearance recovery of which was commenced before that regulation entered into force.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Inasmuch as the origin of the goods referred to in a movement certificate EUR.1 can no longer be confirmed following subsequent verification, that certificate must be considered to be an ‘incorrect certificate’ within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               The person who relies on the third subparagraph of Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, must adduce the evidence necessary for his claim to succeed. It is therefore in principle for the customs authorities which wish to rely on the beginning of the third subparagraph of that Article 220(2)(b) in order to carry out post-clearance recovery to adduce evidence that the incorrect certificates were issued because of the inaccurate account of the facts provided by the exporter. Where, however, as a result of negligence wholly attributable to the exporter, it is impossible for the customs authorities to adduce the necessary evidence that the movement certificate EUR.1 was based on the accurate or inaccurate account of the facts provided by the exporter, the burden of proving that that certificate issued by the authorities of the non-member country was based on an accurate account of the facts lies with the person liable for the duty.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 228, 11.09.2004.