CELEX: C2004/094/52
Language: en
Date: 2004-04-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-75/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen by order of that Court of 11 February 2004 in the case of Ministerie van Financiën against 1...., 2. Hendrick Hanssens, 3. Rudi Verhoeven, 4. World Wide Shipping and Forwarding N.V.

17.4.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 94/24
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen by order of that Court of 11 February 2004 in the case of Ministerie van Financiën against 1...., 2. Hendrick Hanssens, 3. Rudi Verhoeven, 4. World Wide Shipping and Forwarding N.V.
   (Case C-75/04)
   (2004/C 94/52)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen (Court of Appeal) of 11 February 2004, received at the Court Registry on 17 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministerie van Financiën against 1...., 2. Hendrick Hanssens, 3. Rudi Verhoeven, 4. World Wide Shipping and Forwarding N.V. on the following questions:
   
               1.
            
            
               For the purpose of determining the customs debt in accordance with Article 201 et seq. of the Community Customs Code (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 (1)), in the event of non-discharge of T1 documents issued for purposes of exportation to various countries of a consignment of non-Community goods (in casu, textile goods/T-shirts) in transit, where the non-discharge is the result of prior removal from customs supervision, must the first infringement, that is to say, the removal from transit, be taken into account, or must, rather, account be taken of what is chronologically the subsequent infringement, consisting in the non-discharge of the relevant T1 documents? In other words, does the customs debt arise as against a declarant acting in good faith in respect of non-discharge of T1 documents resulting from prior removal from transit – in which the declarant was in no way involved – on the basis of Articles 203(1) and 215(1) of the Community Customs Code or on the basis of Articles 204(1) and 215(3) of the Community Customs Code?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Can the declarant still invoke the guarantees contained in Article 222 of the Community Customs Code if Articles 204(1) and 215(3) thereof are applicable in the case where the declarant is faced with non-discharge of the T1 documents issued by him as a result of prior fraudulent withdrawal from transit of non-Community goods (in casu, textile goods), in which the declarant was uninvolved, or, in other words, is Article 222 of the Community Customs Code, which, inter alia, refers to the general rule of Article 203 of that Code – for the application of which Article 204 of that Code is a more specific provision – linked for purposes of application with Articles 204(1) and 215(3) of the Community Customs Code?
            
         
      (1)  OJ L 302 of 19.10.1992, p. 1