Asociación de Transporte International por Carretera (ASTIC) v Administración General del Estado.
Date: 2010-12-22
28. However, under Article 37 of the TIR Convention, when it is not possible to establish with certainty in which Member State’s territory the offence or irregularity was committed, there is to be a provisional presumption that the State where the offence or irregularity is detected is competent. That presumption is rebutted, however, where it is subsequently established that the first State did have competence (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C‑310/98 and C‑406/98 Met‑Trans and Sagpol  [2000] ECR I‑1797, paragraph 37).
29. That mechanism reflects the idea, on the one hand, that the Member States constitute a single customs territory vis-à-vis third countries concerned by operations under the EU external transit procedure and, on the other hand, that the question as to which Member State has competence to recover customs duties is a problem internal to the European Union, such that if a different Member State becomes the competent State, that does not affect the debtor’s liability to pay the customs duties (see Met-Trans and Sagpol , paragraph 38).
30. With respect, first, to the right to furnish proof of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed, it should be observed that Articles 454 and 455 of the implementing regulation do not specify the person who must or may furnish that proof (see Case C‑78/01 BGL  [2003] ECR I‑9543, paragraph 50).
31. With respect, second, to the time-limit within which that proof must be made out, the first subparagraph of Article 454(3) of the implementing regulation refers, effectively, to Article 455(2) of that regulation (see, to that effect, BGL , paragraphs 64 to 66).
32. Thus, the Court has held that, under the combined provisions of Articles 454 and 455 of the implementing regulation, a guaranteeing association has available to it, for the purposes of furnishing proof of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed, a period of two years from the date on which the claim for payment of the customs debt arising from that offence or irregularity was notified to it (see, to that effect, BGL , paragraph 73).
46. Thus, the objective of the time-limit provided for in Article 455(1) of the implementing regulation, read in conjunction with Article 11(1) of the TIR Convention, is to ensure the diligent and uniform application of the provisions relating to the recovery of duties and taxes in order to secure rapid and effective availability of the European Union’s own resources. In the light of that objective, the time-limit provided for in that provision must therefore be regarded as constituting a procedural rule which is directed only at the administrative authorities with a view to encouraging them to intervene as soon as possible (see, by analogy, Case C‑161/08 Internationaal Verhuis- en Transportbedrijf Jan de Lely [2009] ECR I‑4075, paragraphs 50 and 51, in respect of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1593/91 of 12 June 1991 providing for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 719/91 on the use in the Community of TIR carnets and ATA carnets as transit documents (OJ 1991 L 148, p. 11)).