CELEX: 62019CN0076
Language: en
Date: 2019-01-31 00:00:00
Title: Case C-76/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 January 2019 — Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia Yugozapadna Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ pravopriemnik na Mitnitsa Aerogara Sofia v ‘Curtis Balkan’ EOOD

6.5.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 155/24
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 31 January 2019 — Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia Yugozapadna Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ pravopriemnik na Mitnitsa Aerogara Sofia v ‘Curtis Balkan’ EOOD
      (Case C-76/19)
      (2019/C 155/31)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian
      
         Referring court
      
      Varhoven administrativen sad
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Appellant in cassation: Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia Yugozapadna Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ pravopriemnik na Mitnitsa Aerogara Sofia
      
         Respondent in the appeal in cassation:‘Curtis Balkan’ EOOD
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Is Article 158(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it provides an independent basis for the adjustment of the customs value via the addition of royalties or licence fees to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods, irrespective of the rule in Article 157 of Regulation No 2454/93?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Is Article 158(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 to be interpreted as meaning that it makes provision for two alternative scenarios for the adjustment of the customs value: firstly, the scenario in which the royalties or licence fees, such as those at issue here, relate partly to the imported goods and partly to other component parts added to the goods after their importation, and, secondly, the scenario in which the royalties or licence fees relate to post-importation activities or services?
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Is Article 158(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 to be interpreted as meaning that it makes provision for three scenarios for the adjustment of the customs value: firstly, the scenario in which the royalties or licence fees relate partly to the imported goods and partly to other component parts added to the goods after their importation; secondly, the scenario in which the royalties or licence fees relate partly to the imported goods and partly to post-importation activities or services; thirdly, the scenario in which the royalties or licence fees relate partly to the imported goods and partly to other component parts added to the goods after their importation, or to post-importation activities or services?
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Is Article 158(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 to be interpreted as meaning that it always allows an adjustment of the customs value if it is established that the royalties or licence fees paid relate to activities or services following the importation of the goods being valued, which, in this specific case, are services that are provided to the Bulgarian company by the American company (and are connected with manufacturing and management), irrespective of whether the requirements for the adjustment pursuant to Article 157 of Regulation No 2454/93 have been met?
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Is Article 158(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 to be interpreted as meaning that it constitutes a special case of customs value adjustment under the arrangements and conditions of Article 157 of Regulation No 2454/93, whereby the special nature resides solely in the fact that the royalties or licence fees relate only partly to the goods being valued, meaning that they are to be apportioned appropriately?
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  Is Article 158(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 to be interpreted as meaning that it is also applicable if the buyer pays a fee or royalties or licence fees to a third party?
               
            
                  7.
               
               
                  If both of the preceding questions are answered in the affirmative, must the court assess, for the appropriate apportionment of the royalty or licence fee pursuant to Article 158(3) of Regulation No 2454/93, whether both conditions of Article 157(2) have been met, namely that the royalty or licence fee relates, even if only partly, to the imported goods and that it constitutes a condition of sale of those goods, and, if so, does the rule under Article 160, pursuant to which the conditions of Article 157(2) are met if the seller or a person related to him requires the buyer to make that payment, have to be taken into account in that assessment?
               
            
                  8.
               
               
                  Is Article 160 of Regulation No 2454/93 applicable only to the fundamental rule of Article 157 of Regulation No 2454/93 in the case where the royalties or licence fees are payable to a third party and relate wholly to the product being valued, or is it also applicable in cases in which the royalties or licence fees relate only partly to the imported goods?
               
            
                  9.
               
               
                  Is Article 160 of Regulation No 2454/93 to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘relationship’ between licensor and seller should be understood to refer to cases in which the licensor is related to the buyer, because he exerts direct control over the buyer that goes beyond quality control, or is it to be interpreted as meaning that the relationship between licensor and buyer described above is not sufficient to assume an (indirect) relationship between licensor and seller, in particular if the latter disputes the view that the prices for the buyer’s orders for the imported goods were dependent on the payment of royalties or licence fees and likewise disputes the view that the licensor was in a position to direct or restrict its actions operationally?
               
            
                  10.
               
               
                  Is Article 160 of Regulation No 2454/93 to be interpreted as meaning that it allows an adjustment of the customs value only if both of the conditions set out in Article 157 of Regulation No 2454/93 are met, namely that the royalty or licence fee that is paid to a third party is related to the goods being valued and constitutes a condition of sale of those goods, and the condition that the seller or a person related to him requires the buyer to pay the royalty or licence fee is also met?
               
            
                  11.
               
               
                  Is the requirement under the first indent of Article 157(2) of Regulation No 2454/93 — that the royalty or licence fee be related to the goods being valued — to be regarded as having been fulfilled in the case where there is an indirect connection between the royalty or licence fee and the imported goods, such as that in the present case, if the goods being valued are component parts of the licensed end product?
               
            
         (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).