Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Köln.
Date: 2020-07-16
28


In that regard, it should be recalled that Article 78 of the Customs Code establishes a procedure enabling customs authorities, on their own initiative or at the request of the declarant, to amend the customs declaration after release of the goods covered by that declaration, that is to say, after that declaration has been made (judgment of 12 October 2017, Tigers, C‑156/16, EU:C:2017:754, paragraph 29).
29


The Court has already held that, when the declarant seeks a revision of its declaration, its application must be examined by the customs authorities, at least in relation to the question whether or not there is cause to carry out such a revision, and that the revision applied for by the declarant is thus subject to the assessment of those authorities as regards both its principle and its result. Those authorities enjoy, for that purpose, broad discretion (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 July 2012, Südzucker and Others, C‑608/10, C‑10/11 and C‑23/11, EU:C:2012:444, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited).
30


In that context, the customs authorities are to take into account, in particular, the possibility of reviewing the statements contained in the declaration to be revised and in the application for revision. If revision is in principle possible, the customs authorities must either reject the declarant’s application by reasoned decision or carry out the revision applied for (judgment of 12 July 2012, Südzucker and Others, C‑608/10, C‑10/11 and C‑23/11, EU:C:2012:444, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited).
31


If that re-examination or those inspections show that the provisions governing the customs procedure in question have been applied on the basis of incorrect or incomplete information, the customs authorities must, in accordance with Article 78(3), take the measures necessary to regularise the situation, taking account of the new information available to them (judgment of 12 October 2017, Tigers, C‑156/16, EU:C:2017:754, paragraph 30).
32


It thus follows from Article 78 of the Customs Code as a whole that it is permissible to present new material which may be taken into consideration by the customs authorities after the customs declaration has been made. The specific logic of that article is to bring the customs procedure into line with the actual situation (judgment of 12 October 2017, Tigers, C‑156/16, EU:C:2017:754, paragraph 31).
34


It must be borne in mind that, in interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (judgments of 22 June 2016, Thomas Philipps, C‑419/15, EU:C:2016:468, paragraph 18 and the case-law cited, and of 21 November 2019, Procureur-Generaal bij de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, C‑678/18, EU:C:2019:998, paragraph 31).
35


As regards, first, the wording of Article 78 of the Customs Code, it should be recalled that the wording of that article does not preclude the right of the customs authorities to amend a customs declaration, within the meaning of Article 78(1), to conduct a post-clearance examination thereof, within the meaning of Article 78(2), or to take the measures necessary to regularise the situation, within the meaning of Article 78(3) (judgment of 10 December 2015, Veloserviss, C‑427/14, EU:C:2015:803, paragraph 25).
36


The Court of Justice also held that that article does not distinguish errors or omissions that can be corrected from other situations of the same kind that cannot. The words ‘incorrect or incomplete information’ must be interpreted as covering both clerical errors or omissions and errors of interpretation of the applicable law (judgment of 16 October 2014, VAEX Varkens-en Veehandel, C‑387/13, EU:C:2014:2296, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited).
38


Furthermore, it is necessary to reject the argument, put forward by the Principal Customs Office and the Netherlands Government, relating to the fact that Article 78 of the Customs Code is part of Title IV thereof, relating to customs-approved treatment or use, whereas the provisions regarding the identity of the declarant are part of Title I of that code, relating to general provisions. That circumstance does not preclude customs authorities’ revising information relating to the identity of the declarant which has been indicated in customs declarations, by relying on the existence of a relationship of indirect representation, in order to regularise, where appropriate, the situation. The Court has held, in that regard, that declarations relating to the value of goods can be amended in certain circumstances, even though the provisions relating to that value were included under Title II of the Customs Code and not Title IV thereof (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 October 2005, Overland Footwear, C‑468/03, EU:C:2005:624, paragraph 70).
41


In that regard, the Court held, in its judgment of 12 July 2012, Südzucker and Others (C‑608/10, C‑10/11 and C‑23/11, EU:C:2012:444, paragraph 50), that the mere fact that a physical check of the goods prior to their being exported has become impossible, since those goods have already left the territory of the European Union on the date of submission of the request for revision of the export declaration, does not mean that it is impossible to carry out such a revision.
42


It should also be noted that an amendment to information relating to the identity of the declarant in such a way as to reflect the existence of a relationship of indirect representation is not comparable to an amendment to information concerning the nature or characteristics of the goods, in respect of which the Court held, in its judgment of 20 October 2005, Overland Footwear (C‑468/03, EU:C:2005:624, paragraphs 47 and 48), that the customs authorities may refuse to carry out a revision where the facts to be verified require physical verification and, following the release of the goods, the latter can no longer be presented to them.
46


The Court has held that, if the amendment indicates that the objectives of the legislation at issue are not threatened, particularly in that the goods for which an export declaration was submitted were actually exported and sufficient evidence available to the competent authorities allows the connection between the quantity exported and the licence actually covering the export to be established, 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 information available to them (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 October 2014, VAEX Varkens-en Veehandel, C‑387/13, EU:C:2014:2296, paragraph 54 and the case-law cited).
54


As was already noted in paragraph 36 of this judgment, the concept of ‘error’ covers not only material errors, but also unintentional omissions and any declaration made in disregard of a customs rule (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 July 2019, CEVA Freight Holland, C‑249/18, EU:C:2019:587, paragraphs 32 to 38 and the case-law cited).
55


In this respect, it should be borne in mind that Article 5(4) of the Customs Code requires that the power to act as a representative is already established when the customs declaration is lodged. In addition, that provision provides that persons who fail to state that they are empowered to act as a representative are deemed to be acting in their own name and on their own behalf. The representation must therefore be express and cannot be implied (judgment of 7 April 2011, Sony Supply Chain Solutions (Europe), C‑153/10, EU:C:2011:224, paragraph 31).