CELEX: C2007/297/49
Language: en
Date: 2007-12-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-459/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz (Österreich) lodged on 9 October 2007 — Veli Elshani v Hauptzollamt Linz

8.12.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 297/30
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz (Österreich) lodged on 9 October 2007 — Veli Elshani v Hauptzollamt Linz
   (Case C-459/07)
   (2007/C 297/49)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: Veli Elshani
   
      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Linz
   Questions referred
   
               1.
            
            
               The criterion for extinction laid down in point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 233 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) establishing the Community Customs Code (‘the Customs Code’) does not refer to the time at which the customs debt is incurred but to a time after the customs debt is incurred, because it presupposes a customs debt ‘incurred’ in accordance with Article 202 of the Customs Code.
               Is the expression ‘upon their unlawful introduction’ within the meaning of point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 233 of the Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           the introduction into the customs territory of the Community of goods in respect of which a customs debt is incurred in accordance with Article 202 of the Customs Code ends when they are introduced at the border customs office or at any other place designated by the customs authorities, but at the latest when they leave the premises of the border customs office or of the otherwise designated place, because the goods have thus entered the customs territory, with the result that seizure and confiscation of the goods after that time no longer results in the extinction of the customs debt,
                           or as meaning that:
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           the introduction into the customs territory of the Community of goods in respect of which a customs debt is incurred in accordance with Article 202 of the Customs Code continues, adopting an economic approach, for as long as their transport continues as a single process following the introduction of the goods into the customs territory, and the goods in the customs territory have not yet therefore reached their first destination and come to rest there, with the result that seizure and confiscation of the goods up to that time results in the extinction of the customs debt?
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               In the event of unlawful conduct for the purposes of Article 202 of the Customs Code which is discovered upon introduction, the customs debt must be extinguished. By contrast, seizure of goods directly upon their being removed from customs supervision, as unlawful conduct for the purposes of Article 203 of the Customs Code, results in no immediate extinction of the customs debt.
               Is point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 233 of the Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that this extinction of the customs debt, which is restricted expressly to cases where the customs debt is incurred in accordance with Article 202 of the Customs Code, is nevertheless consistent with the principle of equal treatment of unlawful conduct?
            
         
      (1)  OJ L 302, p. 1.