Antonio Capaldo SpA v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli – Ufficio delle dogane di Salerno.
Date: 2020-07-16
16


The Court has consistently held that it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions put by national courts concern the interpretation or the validity of a provision of EU law, the Court is, in principle, bound to give a ruling. It follows that questions referred by national courts enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court for a preliminary ruling only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (judgments of 16 June 2015, Gauweiler and Others, C‑62/14, EU:C:2015:400, paragraphs 24 and 25; of 2 October 2018, Ministerio Fiscal, C‑207/16, EU:C:2018:788, paragraph 45; and of 19 December 2019, Dobersberger, C‑16/18, EU:C:2019:1110, paragraphs 18 and 19).
21


In the second place, both the very purpose of the Customs Code, which is to ensure the correct application of the duties provided for therein, and the specific logic of Article 78 thereof, which is to bring the customs procedure into line with the actual situation by rectifying technical errors or omissions as well as errors of interpretation of the applicable law, weigh against an interpretation of that article which would preclude generally the customs authorities from amending or conducting other post-clearance examinations of customs declarations in order to regularise the situation (judgment of 10 December 2015, Veloserviss, C‑427/14, EU:C:2015:803, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).
22


Unlike the correction provided for in Article 65 of the Customs Code, which is carried out unilaterally by the declarant before the goods are released, revision occurs after the goods are released, thus justifying the fact that the customs authorities have a certain margin of discretion as to whether or not it is appropriate to carry out the revision requested (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 October 2005, Overland Footwear, C‑468/03, EU:C:2005:624, paragraph 66).
24


First of all, when an application for revision has been made, the customs authorities are required to assess whether or not there is cause to carry out that revision, taking into account, in particular, whether it is materially possible to establish whether or not the application is well founded and, at the conclusion of their assessment, the customs authorities must, subject to the possibility of a subsequent court action, either reject the declarant’s application by reasoned decision or carry out the revision applied for (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 October 2005, Overland Footwear, C‑468/03, EU:C:2005:624, paragraphs 46 to 52).
25


Next, where the examination which they carry out indicates that the provisions governing the customs procedure in question were applied on the basis of incorrect or incomplete information, the customs authorities must, in accordance with Article 78(3) of the Customs Code, take the measures necessary to regularise the situation, taking account of the new information available to them (judgment of 10 December 2015, Veloserviss, C‑427/14, EU:C:2015:803, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited).
26


In that regard, it is appropriate to observe that the words ‘incorrect or incomplete information’ in Article 78(3) must be interpreted as covering both technical errors or omissions and errors of interpretation of the applicable law (judgments of 20 October 2005, Overland Footwear, C‑468/03, EU:C:2005:624, paragraph 63, and of 10 July 2019, CEVA Freight Holland, C‑249/18, EU:C:2019:587, paragraph 32). Consequently, the customs authorities may not reject an application for revision on the sole ground that the importer did not contest a prior check without disregarding the purpose of Article 78 of the Customs Code.
27


Finally, where it becomes apparent that the import duties paid by the declarant exceed those that were legally owed at the time of their payment, the measure necessary to regularise the situation can consist only in reimbursement of the overpaid amount (judgment of 20 October 2005, Overland Footwear, C‑468/03, EU:C:2005:624, paragraph 53).