CELEX: C2004/118/18
Language: en
Date: 2004-04-30 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-222/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): British American Tobacco Manufacturing BV v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (Free movement of goods — External Community transit — Temporary removal of transit and transport documents — Breaking of seals and partial unloading of goods — Removal of goods from customs supervision — Incurring of a customs debt on importation — Unsuspected presence of undercover customs agents — Special circumstances justifying remission or repayment of import duties — Liability of the principal in the case of deception or obvious negligence on the part of persons engaged by him)

30.4.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 118/10
            
         
      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   
   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-222/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): British American Tobacco Manufacturing BV v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (1)
   
   (Free movement of goods - External Community transit - Temporary removal of transit and transport documents - Breaking of seals and partial unloading of goods - Removal of goods from customs supervision - Incurring of a customs debt on importation - Unsuspected presence of undercover customs agents - Special circumstances justifying remission or repayment of import duties - Liability of the principal in the case of deception or obvious negligence on the part of persons engaged by him)
   (2004/C 118/18)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-222/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between British American Tobacco Manufacturing BV and Hauptzollamt Krefeld — on the interpretation of the Community rules concerning the incurring, remission and repayment of a customs debt — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it has ruled:
   
               1)
            
            
               In so far as the temporary removal of the T 1 transit document from the goods to which it relates prevents the presentation of that document at any possible requisition by the customs service, such a removal constitutes a removal of those goods from customs supervision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2144/87 of 13 July 1987 on customs debt even if the customs authorities have not demanded presentation of that document or established that it could not have been presented to them without considerable delay.
            
         
               2)
            
            
               The fact that infringements of the Community transit system originate in the conduct of an undercover agent belonging to the customs services constitutes a special situation within the meaning of Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the repayment or remission of import or export duties, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3069/86 of 7 October 1986, which may, in appropriate cases, justify the remission or repayment of duties paid by the principal, on condition that no deception or obvious negligence may be attributed to him.
            
         
               3)
            
            
               Deception or obvious negligence on the part of persons whom the principal has engaged to carry out obligations contracted under the Community external transit system does not, in itself, exclude repayment to the principal of duties incurred as a result of the removal of goods placed under that system from customs supervision, on condition that no deception or obvious negligence is attributable to the principal.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 245, 1.9.2001.