Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests.
Date: 2014-02-27
22. That general provision thus institutes the legal fiction of uniform quality enabling the customs authorities, where only part of the goods covered by a declaration are examined, to apply the results of that examination to all the goods covered by that declaration (see, to that effect, Case C‑353/04 Nowaco Germany  [2006] ECR I‑7357, paragraphs 54 and 55, and Joined Cases C-323/10 to C-326/10 Gebr. Stolle  [2011] ECR I‑12177, paragraphs 100 and 101).
23. In that regard, that provision is intended to guarantee rapid and efficient procedures for the release for free circulation by not requiring the customs authorities to make a detailed inspection of all goods declared to customs, which would serve neither the interests of traders, who are in general concerned to obtain the release in order to be able rapidly to sell the goods declared by them, nor the interests of those authorities, for whom a systematic examination of declared goods would mean a considerable amount of extra work (see, to that effect, Case C‑290/01 Derudder  [2004] ECR I‑2041, paragraph 45).
24. It must be noted that it is apparent from both the wording of Article 70(1) of the Customs Code and the scheme of Articles 68 to 74 of that code that that possibility of applying the results of a partial examinati on concerns only those goods which are covered by ‘a [single] declaration’ where those goods are examined by the customs authorities before those authorities grant the release of those goods (see, to that effect, Derudder , paragraph 43).
27. In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, in the procedure laid down in Article 267 TFEU for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the referring court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it (see, inter alia, Case C-45/06 Campina  [2007] ECR I-2089, paragraph 30, and Case C-243/09 Fuß [2010] ECR I-9849, paragraph 39).
28. As the Czech and Spanish Governments have stated in their written observations, after the grant of the release of goods covered by a customs declaration, the customs authorities may, on their own initiative, if necessary, amend such a declaration in accordance with Article 78 of the Customs Code (see, to that effect, Case C‑468/03 Overland Footwear  [2005] ECR I‑8937, paragraphs 62, 64 and 66).
29. According to Article 78(2) of the Customs Code, after releasing the goods, the customs authorities may inspect the commercial documents and data relating to the import or export operations in respect of the goods or to subsequent commercial operations involving those goods and they may also inspect the goods, where they are still available for inspection.
30. Thus that provision permits the customs authorities to call into question earlier customs declarations which have not been examined under Article 68 of the Customs Code and which, accordingly, have been dealt with on the basis of the particulars contained in Article 71(2) of the code (see, to that effect, Case C‑138/10 DP grup  [2011] ECR I‑8369, paragraph 37).
32. The option of applying those results is justified by the very purpose of the Customs Code, which is, as stated in recital 5 in the preamble to that code, to ensure the correct application of the duties provided for therein, while guaranteeing, as is apparent from paragraph 23 of this judgment, rapid and efficient procedures in the interests of both traders and the customs authorities, by dispensing with a systematic examination of all declared goods, thus keeping to a minimum, as stated in recital 6 in the preamble to that code, customs formalities and controls (see, to that effect, Derudder , paragraphs 42 and 45).
33. That possibility also accords with the specific logic of Article 78 of the Customs Code, which is to bring the customs procedure into line with the actual situation by correcting material errors or omissions and errors in the interpretation of the applicable law (see, to that effect, Overland Footwear , paragraph 63; Joined Cases C‑430/08 and C‑431/08 Terex Equipment and Others  [2010] ECR I‑321, paragraph 56; and Joined Cases C‑608/10, C‑10/11 and C‑23/11 Südzucker  [2012] ECR, paragraph 47).
35. Article 78 of the Customs Code applies, as a matter of principle, after the grant of the release of the goods to a time when their presentation may be impossible (see Overland Footwear , paragraph 66).
36. In any event, as the majority of the parties which have filed written observations has pointed out, it follows from the very wording of Article 78(2) of the Customs Code that the post release inspections of the customs declarations may be carried out on the basis of written documents without the customs authorities being required physically to inspect the goods, such an inspection being provided for only where ‘it is still possible for them to be produced’ (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C‑320/11, C‑330/11, C‑382/11 and C‑383/11 Digitalnet and Others  [2012] ECR, paragraphs 66 and 67).
38. However, it is essential that customs declarants have the right to challenge such an application, in particular where, as in the main proceedings, they consider, despite their own information provided in their customs declarations, that the result of the partial examination of the goods declared is not transferable to goods covered by earlier customs declarations, by adducing evidence in support of that assertion to show that the goods in question are not identical (see, by analogy, Derudder , paragraph 42).
40. Finally, it must be noted that, although Article 78 of the Customs Code does not institute any specific time-limit for the amendment of customs declarations, the customs authorities, in accordance with Article 221(3) of that code, may communicate a new customs debt within a period of three years from the date on which that debt arose.
41. In the present case, subject to the checks to be carried out by the referring court, it is apparent from the information provided to the Court that that time-limit, as GFSL confirmed in reply to a question put by the Court at the hearing, has been complied with since, as it follows from paragraphs 11 and 12 of this judgment, the first of the amended customs declarations bears the date of 4 June 2004 and the communication of that new customs debt was made on 31 May 2007.