natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
En sådan be ville i realiteten føre til, at der ville blive fastsat forskellige toldvær den samme vare alt efter afstanden mellem indførselsstedet og besten stedet, hvilket ville være i strid med det hensyn at sikre importørerne artet behandling, som er udtalt i præamblen og nærmere udformet i ningens artikel 1.
Such a calculation would i fact lead to the establishment of different values for customs purposes i respect of the same goods, varying according to the distance between tr place of introduction and the place of destination, and this would not be i keeping with the objective of ensuring equal treatment of importers which set out in the eighth recital in the preamble to the regulation and incoi porated in Article 1 thereof.
Det er disse betragtninger, som berettiger den i ai stk. 2, første punktum, hjemlede undtagelse fra den almindelige rege kel 1 om fradrag af omkostninger i forbindelse med transport inden i lesskabet.
These are the considerations which justify tf exception provided for in the first sentence of Article 8 (2) to the gener principle laid down in Article 1 that transport costs wihtin the Communi) are to be deducted.
Det er ud fra dette synspunkt, de to første spørgsmål skal besvares.
It is by considering the problem in this way that the first two questior should be answered.
1 skeligheder, som opstår, dels ved beregningen af de transportomkos der faktisk indeholdes i den faste pris frit bestemmelsessted, dels ford nødvendigt at sikre importørerne en ensartet behandling, et hensyn, s ger til grund for reglen i artikel 8, stk. 2, første punktum, gør sig gaf hvad enten denne pris anvendes for hele Fællesskabets toldområde eli for en del af dette. Svaret på de to første spørgsmål skal følgelig λ begrebet »fast pris frit bestemmelsessted« i artikel 8, stk. 2, i forord) 803/68 skal fortolkes således, at denne pris ikke nødvendigvis skal v; samme for alle bestemmelsessteder inden for Fællesskabets toldområdi
The difficulties which are involved, on the one hand, b calculation of the transport costs actually included in the uniform frt domicile price and, on the other hand, by the need to ensure equal treatmei of importers, and which explain the rule laid down in the first sentence < Article 8 (2), arise in the same way whether this price is charged throughoi the whole of the customs territory of the Community or only in a pa thereof. The answer to the first two questions must therefore be that tf words "uniform free domicile price" mentioned in Article 8 (2) of Regi lation No 803/68 must be interpreted as meaning that the price in question not necessarily uniform for all destinations within the customs territory ( the Community. D-141
1980 — SAG 84/79 stykkets første punktum kun indeholder en formodningsregel, og da hoanken stadig er, at der kan ske fradrag for udgifter til intern transport i esskabet, har det været nødvendigt at opstille en undtagelse for de til— e, hvor det faste beløb, der som transportomkostning er indregnet i den : pris, fremtræder med tilstrækkelig tydelighed; dette er formålet med æl 8, stk. 2, andet punktum.
Since the first sentence of Article 8 (2) only contains a presumption and since the main idea is still the deduction of internal transport costs there had to be an exception to cover the case where the fixed sum included in the uniform price for transport costs is satisfactorily ascertainable; this is the aim of the second sentence of Article 8 (2).
fremgår af ordlyden af dette punktum, som er udtrykt i conditionalis, at ikke er nødvendigt at bevise, at den pågældende leverandør faktisk har t varerne til en faktureret pris frit grænse.
The actual wording of this sentence, which uses the conditional mood, indicates that it is not necessary to prove that the same supplier has in fact sold the goods at a freefrontier invoice price.
Men, som Kommissionen fortr i sit indlæg, skal der føres bevis for den pris, som køberen skulle have lt for den pågældende vare ved et eventuelt køb frit grænse under i *t identiske salgsbetingelser og ved import over samme indførselssted.
Moreover, as the Commission explains in its observations, it is necessary to determine the price which a prospective purchaser would have had to pay for a freefrontier purchase of the goods which have to be assessed, all the other conditions of sale being identical, in the event of importation through the same place of introduction.
esskabets lovgivning om toldværdien indeholder ingen særlig procedure jevisførelsen.
Community legislation relating to value for customs purposes does not provide for any specific procedure for the production of evidence.
Det er således de nationale regler, der gælder, når importøvi\ godtgøre over for toldmyndighederne, at prisen frit grænse ville være re end den faste pris frit bestemmelsessted.
Consequently national rules are to be applied in this field if the importer wishes to produce evidence to the customs authorities that the freefrontier price would be lower than the free domicile price.
Toldmyndighederne skal dog hensyn til formålet med artikel 8, stk. 2; dette er, som Kommissionen :rstreger, at forhindre fradrag af for høje transportomkostninger, som er indregnet i fakturaprisen, men også, i overensstemmelse med præams princip og forordningens artikel 1, at give mulighed for fradrag af omninger, der hidrører fra transport inden for Fællesskabet, og som faktisk idregnet i denne pris.
However, the customs authorities must take account of the objectives of Article 8 (2) which, as the Commission has stressed, is to prevent the deduction of transport costs which are too high and not in fact included in the invoiced price, but also to allow, in accordance with the principle laid down in the preamble to the regulation and Article 1 thereof the deduction of transport costs in Community territory which are in fact included in this price.
e formål med den pågældende bestemmelse synes ikke at være til hinder at f.eks. efterfølgende erklæringer fra leverandøren eller dennes agent godtages som bevis, når disse erklæringer giver troværdige oplysninger prissituationen på importtidspunktet, især hvis de stemmer overens med ; objektive oplysninger.
This objective of the provision in question does not appear to prevent, for example, statements made a posteriori by the supplier or by his agent being accepted as evidence, if such statements supply reliable particulars of the price situation at the time of importation, especially if they corroborate more objective information.
et på det tredje spørgsmål skal følgelig være, at det på fællesskabsrettens erende stade påhviler den nationale ret på grundlag af den nationale lov ing at træffe afgørelse om det bevis, som importøren i henhold til artikel k. 2, andet punktum, i forordning nr. 803/68 skal føre for at godtgøre,
The answer to the third question must therefore be that in the present state of Community law it is for the national court to decide, in accordance with its national legislation, what evidence the importer is to produce to establish, as provided for in the second sentence of Article 8 (2) of Regulation
MEYER-UETZE / HAUFTZOLLAMT BAD REICHENHALL at prisen frit grænse ville være lavere end den faste pris frit bestemme: under i øvrigt identiske salgsbetingelser og ved import over samme selssted.
No 803/68, that the freefrontier price would be lower than the uniform free domicile price, all the other conditions of sale being identical, in the event of importation through the same place of introduction.
Den nationale ret skal dog tage i betragtning, at formålet m lesskabsbestemmelsen er at give mulighed for, at omkostninger, der h fra transport inden for Fællesskabets toldområde, og som faktisk er ini i den faste pris — men også kun disse transportomkostninger — kan t fra prisen ved fastsættelsen af varens toldværdi.
The national court must however take into account the purpose of that Community provision which is to allow transport costs within the customs territory of the Community which are actually included in the uniform price — but only those transport costs — to be deducted from the price when the customs valuation is determined.
De udgifter, der er afholdt af Kommissionen for De europæiske skaber, som har afgivet indlæg for Domstolen, kan ikke godtgøres, gens behandling i forhold til hovedsagens parter udgør et led i den s verserer for den nationale ret, tilkommer det denne at træffe afgøre sagens omkostninger.
The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities which has submitted observations to the Court are not recoverable; since the proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main action are concerned, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
DOMSTOLEN (anden afdeling) vedrørende de spørgsmål, som er forelagt den af'Bundesfinanzhof ve delse af 24. april 1979, for ret:
THE COURT (Second Chamber) in answer to the questions referred to it by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of 24 April 1979, hereby rules:
Begrebet »fast pris frit bestemmelsessted« i artikel 8, stk. 2, i ning nr. 803/68 skal fortolkes således, at denne pris ikke beh være den samme for alle bestemmelsessteder inden for Fælles toldområde.
The words "uniform free domicile price" mentioned in Article 8 (2) of Regulation No 803/68 must be interpreted as meaning that the price in question is not necessarily uniform for all the destinations within the customs territory of the Community.
På fællesskabsrettens nuværende stade påhviler det den natioi på grundlag af den nationale lovgivning at træffe afgørelse bevis, som importøren i henhold til artikel 8, stk. 2, andet pun forordning nr. 803/68 skal føre for at godtgøre, at prisen frit ville være lavere end den faste pris frit bestemmelsessted t øvrigt identiske sagsbetingelser og ved import over samme ind sted.
In the present state of Community law it is for the national court to decide, in accordance with its national legislation, what evidence the importer is to produce to establish, as provided for in the second sentence of Article 8 (2) of Regulation No 803/68, that the freefrontier price would be lower than the uniform free domicile price, all the other conditions of sale being identical, in the event of impor­tation through the same place of introduction.
Den nationale ret skal dog tage i betragtning, at formål
The national court
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA HR. REISCHL — SAG 84/79 fællesskabsbestemmelsen er at give mulighed for, at omkostninger, der hidrører fra transport inden for Fællesskabets toldområde, og som faktisk er indregnet i den faste pris — men også kun disse transport­omkostninger — kan trækkes fra prisen ved fastsættelsen af varens toldværdi.
OPINION OF MR REISCHL — CASE 84/79 must however take into account the purpose of that Community provision which is to allow transport costs within the customs territory of the Community which are actually included in the uniform price — but only those transport costs — to be deducted from the price when the customs valuation is determined.
Due igt i offentligt retsmøde i Luxembourg den 14. februar 1980.
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 14 February 1980.
Formand for anden afdeling iRSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT G. REISCHL FREMSAT DEN 13.
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL REISCHL DELIVERED ON 13 DECEMBER 1979 «
DECEMBER 1979 ' ι Ret præjudicielle sag, som Domstolen ndler i dag, drejer sig om fortolk­ af Rådets forordning nr. 803/68 af uni 1968 om varers toldværdi (EFT ! I, s. 163).
The reference for a preliminary ruling with which we are concerned today raises questions relating to the interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 803/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 170).
MEYER­UETZE / HAUPrZOLLAMT BAD REICHENHALL samme pris, og at man altså havd gøre med faste priser i den i artike forordning nr. 803/68 nævnte forst Hermed var det udelukket, at man ι videre kunne lægge de af sagsøgerer regnede indenlandske fragtomkostni til grund og trække dem fra faktur; sen.
MEYER­UETZE ν HAUPTZOLLAMT BAD REICHENHALL was they had been supplied at the same prices and that consequently the provisions relating to uniform prices within the meaning of Article 8 of Regu­lation No 803/68 applied. They ruled out the possibility of simply taking into account the internal transport costs which had been calculated and deducting them from the invoice prices.
nævnte omkostninger især omfatter transportomkostningerne.
carriage and freight".
Endvidere be­stemmer artikel 9, at den pris, der er be­talt eller skal betales, kan godkendes som toldværdi, når denne pris om fornødent reguleres for at tage hensyn til omstæn­digheder, der ved det pågældende køb måtte afvige fra de til grund for normal­prisen liggende.
Furthermore according to Article 9 the price paid or payable may also be accepted as the value for customs purposes if that price is adjusted, if necessary, to take account of circumstances of the sale which differ from those on which the normal price is based.
Ifølge artikel 9, stk. 2, vedrører en sådan regulering især de om­kostninger, der er nævnt i artikel 1, stk. 2.
According to Article 9 (2) such an adjustment may in particular be required with reference to the costs, charges and expenses mentioned in Article 1 (2).
Endelig bestemmer artikel 8, stk. 2:
Finally Article 8 (2) provides:
Sagsøgeren indgav klager herimod, støtte for sin opfattelse, at der skulle drages et fast fragtomkostningsbeløl fakturaprisen, påberåbte sagsøgeren en erklæring af august 1972 fra det garske leverandørfirma, ifølge hvilke verandørfirmaet havde indregnet et beløb på 0,062 DM pr. kg nettovægi fragten inden for Forbundsrepubhl Tyskland.
"Where goods are invoiced at a uniform free domicile price which corresponds to the price at the place of introduction, transport costs within the Community shall not be deducted from that price.
Derudover forelagde sags ren en skrivelse af 30. august 1972 det ungarske leverandørfirma, hvori hedder:
However, such deduction shall be allowed if evidence is produced to the customs authorities that the free­frontier price would be lower than the uniform free domicile price."
»Faktureres varer til en fast pris frit be­stemmelsessted, som svarer til prisen på indførselsstedet, skal de omkostninger, der vedrører transporten inden for Fæl­lesskabet, ikke fradrages denne pris.
The plaintiff objected to this assessment. It relied, in order to support its view that a fixed proportion of the transport costs is to be deducted from the invoice prices, on a statement of the general agent of the Hungarian firm of suppliers of August 1972 confirming that a fixed sum of DM 0.062 per kilogram net for carriage within the Federal Republic of Germany was included by the firm of suppliers in the invoice values.
Et sådant fradrag kan dog foretages, når det kan godtgøres over for toldvæsenet, at prisen frit grænse ville være lavere end den faste pris frit bestemmelsessted.«
It also produced a letter of the Hungarian firm of suppliers of 30 August 1972 which reads :
»Vi havde aftalt, at vore priser frit stemmelsessted i Forbundsrepubhl skulle gælde ved levering med vore ι frostlastvogne.
"We had agreed that our prices should be on a free­at­destination basis in the Federal Republic of Germany when delivery is made by our refrigerated lorries.
Af konkurrencehei har vi nedsat priserne for større afsta for at vi kan anvende samme betingi for alle bestemmelsessteder.
In order to be able to compete we have reduced prices for the longer distances so that we can proceed on the basis that the same conditions apply to all destinations.
For tyske strækning ab "grænse har vi i salgspriser indregnet et gennemsni fragttillæg på 62 DM pr. ton.
In the case of the section in Germany from the frontier we have calculated the additional costs of carriage included in our selling prices at an average of DM 62 per tonne.
Vore ρ frit grænse er således tilsvarende la end den pris, der er aftalt på basi frit bestemmelsessted i Forbundsrepul ken.«
Our free­at­frontier prices are thus less by this amount than the price agreed on a free­at­destination basis in the Federal Republic of Germany".
Sagsøgeren i hovedsagen har i perioden fra marts til november 1972 modtaget 15 partier dybfrossen frugt og grønsager, købt hos et ungarsk firma.
The plaintiff in the main action in the period from March to November 1972 bought 15 consignments of deep­frozen fruit and vegetables from a Hungarian firm.
Varerne blev befordret med leverandørfirmaets last­vogne og blev ekspederet til fri omsæt­ning ved Zollamt Freilassing­Saalbrücke, indførselssted i henhold til artikel 6 i forordning nr. 803/68. Sagsøgeren var repræsenteret af et speditionsfirma.
The goods were carried in the supplier's lorries and were declared for home use to the Customs Office at Frei­lassing­Saalbrücke, the place of intro­duction within the meaning of Article 6 of Regulation No 803/68, and for this purpose the plaintiff was represented by a firm of forwarding agents.
Toldmyndighederne opkrævede i første omgang de skyldige indførselsafgifter på grundlag af de af speditionsfirmaet op­givne værdier — pris frit bestemmel­sessted — med fradrag af en indenlandsk fragtomkostningsandel, som var be­regnet af speditionsfirmaet ud fra den of­ficielle landevejstransporttarif (Reichs­kraftwagentarif).
The Customs Office first levied the import duties which were due on the basis of the value of the goods, as declared by the firm of forwarding agents — free at destination — after deducting part of the internal transport costs as calculated in accordance with the Reichskraftwagen­tarif [German Road Transport Tariff] by the firm of forwarding agents appointed.
Senere ændrede myn­digheden disse foreløbige toldafgørelser og afkrævede derfor sagsøgeren yderli­gere et beløb med den begrundelse, at varerne, uanset hvilket sted de var be­stemt for, ville være blevet leveret til
The Customs Office subsequently amended these provisional assessments of customs duty and claimed further duty from the plaintiff on the ground that whatever the destination of the goods
Klagen blev imidlertid ikke taget til f af Hauptzollamt (klageinstansen). Di myndighed fandt ikke, at de nævnte : velser kunne anses for at være tiistræl lig dokumentation efter artikel 8 i ordning nr. 803/68. Som sådan kl kun anses dokumenter, hvis rigtij
The Principal Customs Office however overruled the objection on the ground that the said letter could not be regarded as adequate evidence for the purposes of Article 8 of Regulation No 803/68.
Bundesfinanzhof udsatte sagen ved ken delse af 24. april 1979 og har i henhold til artikel 177 i EØF-traktaten forelagt følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål for EF-Domstolen:
The Bundesfinanzhof by its order of 24 April 1979 stayed proceedings and, pursuant to Article 177 to the EEC Treaty, referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling the following questions:
Skal begrebet 'fast pris frit bestem melsessted' i artikel 8, stk. 2, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 803/68 af 27. juni 1968 om varers toldværdi fortolkes således, at denne pris skal være fast for alle bestemmelsessteder i Fællesskabets toldområde?
Must the words 'uniform free domicile price' in Article 8 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 803/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes be interpreted as meaning that such price must be uniform for all destinations within the customs territory of the Community?
Såfremt det første spørgsmål besvares bekræftende, kan det da antages — og i givet fald hvorledes — at fa ste priser frit bestemmelsessted kun gælder for én medlemsstat?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, may the fact that uniform free domicile prices apply to only one Member State be taken into account, and if so how?
Finanzgericht henviste it det ifølge udtalelser fra en toldem¡mand måtte anses for bevist, at der 1er en fast pris frit bestemmelsessted alle aftagere fra det ungarske levelørfirma inden for Forbundsrepublik-Derfor kunne der i henhold til forling nr. 803/68, artikel 8, stk. 2, kun ækkes for indenlandske transport:ostninger, hvis det blev bevist, at prifrit grænse var lavere end den faste frit bestemmelsessted.
In such circumstances a deduction of costs of internal carriage and freight is only permissible under Article 8 (2) of Regulation No 803/68 if evidence is produced that the freefrontier price would be lower than the uniform free domicile price.
Dette bevis var isk ikke blevet ført; navnlig var det bevist ved skrivelsen af august 1972, kun indeholdt en efterfølgende ering, der ikke kunne efterprøves.
But this evidence has not in fact been produced; in particular it is not to be found in the letter of August 1972 which only contained an assertion prompted after the event which cannot be verified.
Hvorledes skal artikel 8, stk. 2, an det punktum, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 803/68 af 27. juni 1968 om varers toldværdi fortolkes, for så vidt angår kravene til det heri for: langte bevis?«
How is the second sentence of Article 8 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 803/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes to be interpreted in relation to the requirements with regard to the evidence to be produced?"
Til disse spørgsmål skal jeg fremsætte følgende betragtninger:
My views on these questions are as follows:
Jeg er som Kommissionen af den op fattelse, at ingen tvingende grund taler for, at begrebet »fast pris frit bestem melsessted« i artikel 8, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 803/68 bør fortolkes sådan, at denne pris skal være den samme for alle bestemmelsessteder i Fællesskabets toldområde.
I share the Commission's opinion that there are no compelling reasons for supposing that the expression "uniform free domicile price" in Article 8 (2) of Regulation No 803/68 is to be interpreted as meaning that this price must be uniform for all destinations of the customs territory of the Community.
Efter den principielle regel i toldværdi forordningens artikel 1 skal man ved fastlæggelsen af normalprisen gå ud fra, at varerne leveres til køberen ved indførselsstedet i toldområdet, og at fragtomkostningerne indtil dette punkt bæres af sælgeren.
According to the basic rule contained in Article 1 of the regulation on the valuation of goods for customs purposes the normal price shall be determined on the assumption that the goods are delivered to the buyer at the place of introduction into the customs territory of the Community and that the transport costs incurred up to that point are borne by the seller.
MEYER-UETZE / HAUPTZOLLAMT BAD REICHENHALL trækkes, medmindre der fremi; særskilt bevis, et spørgsmål, som m handles mere indgående.
MEYER-UETZE ν HAUPTZOLLAMT BAD REICHENHALL entirely pragmatic considerations, Article 8 of Regulation No 803/68 has provided that in such a case transport costs may not in principle be deducted unless specific evidence is produced, which I will have to consider later.
Dette er tydeligvis tilfældet, når _BAR_ frit bestemmelsessted fjernt fra gn er lige så høj som prisen ved indfø stedet, og når det er utvivlsomt, at ( tale om et område med ens priser, om forskellige markeder.
However, this is clearly the case if the price free at a place of destination away from the frontier is as high as the price at the place of introduction and if it is beyond all doubt that in this connexion there is an area in which prices are uniform and that there are not therefore different markets.
Derfor e ikke afgørende, om prisen også e: samme på alle andre bestemmelsessti hele Fællesskabet.
Accordingly it is not material whether the price is just as high at all the other places of destination throughout the whole Community.