Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Road Air Logistics Customs BV.
Date: 2007-12-13
26. In fact, it follows from the text of Article 215, from Articles 378 and 379 of the implementing regulation and from the case-law of the Court that the determination of the place where the customs debt was incurred allows the Member State with jurisdiction to recover customs duties to be identified (see, to that effect, Case C‑233/98 Lensing & Brockhausen  [1999] ECR I-7349, paragraph 30). It follows that, although it is in Chapter 2 of Title VII of the Customs Code, Article 215 of that code does not lay down prior conditions for the incurrence of a customs debt. The purpose of that provision is rather to determine territorial jurisdiction to recover the amount of the customs debt.
28. It is evident from the case file and the observations submitted to the Court that the goods in question in the main proceedings did not reach their destination and that there is no dispute as to the irregularity of the transit transactions. In that regard, it should be pointed out that, according to the Court’s case-law, an irregularity which constitutes a removal of the goods from customs supervision will always, pursuant to Article 203(1) of the Customs Code, give rise to a customs debt  (see, to that effect, Case C-371/99 Liberexim  [2002] ECR I‑6227, paragraph 52).
30. Nevertheless, in order to provide the national court with a useful answer, it should be pointed out that, while the failure to determine the place where the customs debt was incurred does not preclude the incurrence of that debt, the fact remains that the notification to the principal of the three month time-limit referred to in Article 379(2) of the implementing regulation is a prerequisite for the recovery of that debt by the customs authorities (see, by analogy, Case C-300/03 Honeywell Aerospace  [2005] ECR I-689, paragraph 23).
31. In fact, the Court has already held that it follows from the very wording of Articles 378(1) and 379(2) of the implementing regulation that notification by the office of departure to the principal of the time-limit by which the proof requested must be furnished is mandatory and must precede recovery of the customs debt (see, to that effect, Lensing & Brockhausen , paragraph 29; Honeywell Aerospace , paragraph 24; and Case C-44/06 Gerlach [2007] ECR I-2071, paragraph 33).
32. The Court, moreover, has emphasised that this time-limit is intended to protect the interests of the principal by allowing it three months in which to furnish, where appropriate, proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed (see, to that effect, Case C‑112/01 SPKR  [2002] ECR I-10655, paragraph 38; C-460/01 Commission  v Netherlands  [2005] ECR I-2613, paragraph 62; and Gerlach , paragraph 34).
33. It follows that the Member State to which the office of departure belongs can proceed to recovery of import duties only if it has first informed the principal that it has a period of three months in which to furnish the proof requested and if such proof has not been provided within that period (see, to that effect, Lensing & Brockhausen , paragraph 31 and Gerlach , paragraph 35).