1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 29, Article 112(3) and Article 214 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 17, p. 1) (‘the Community Customs Code’), and of Article 97k, Article 118 and Article 147 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1063/2010 of 18 November 2010 (OJ 2010 L 307, p. 1) (‘Regulation No 2454/93’).
2 The request has been made in proceedings between Compañía de Distribución Integral Logista, SA and Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria (State Agency for Tax Administration, Spain; ‘the Tax Authority’) concerning the determination of the customs value of certain goods and the validity of proofs of origin of those goods for the purpose of applying preferential arrangements.
3 Article 29(1) of the Community Customs Code, in Chapter 3, entitled ‘Value of goods for customs purposes’, of Title II of that code, entitled ‘Factors on the basis of which import duties or export duties and the other measures prescribed in respect of trade in goods are applied’, provided: ‘The customs value of imported goods shall be the transaction value, that is, the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to the customs territory of the [European Union], adjusted, where necessary …’
4 According to Article 76(1)(c) of that code: ‘In order to simplify completion of formalities and procedures as far as possible while ensuring that operations are conducted in a proper manner, the customs authorities shall, under conditions laid down in accordance with the committee procedure, grant permission for: … (c) the goods to be entered for the procedure in question by means of an entry in the records; in this case, the customs authorities may waive the requirement that the declarant presents the goods to customs.’
5 The first and second subparagraphs of Article 112(3) of that code were worded as follows: ‘Where import goods are released for free circulation in accordance with Article 76(1)(c), the nature of the goods, the customs value and the quantity to be taken into account for the purposes of Article 214 shall be those applicable to the goods at the time when they were placed under the customs-warehousing procedure. The first subparagraph shall apply provided that the rules of assessment relating to those goods were ascertained or accepted at the time when the goods were placed under the customs-warehousing procedure, unless the declarant requests their application at the time when the customs debt is incurred.’
6 Article 201(1) and (2) of the Community Customs Code provided: ‘1. A customs debt on importation shall be incurred through: (a) the release for free circulation of goods liable to import duties … … 2. A customs debt shall be incurred at the time of acceptance of the customs declaration in question.’
7 Article 214(1) of that code provided: ‘Save as otherwise expressly provided by this Code and without prejudice to paragraph 2, the amount of the import duty or export duty applicable to goods shall be determined on the basis of the rules of assessment appropriate to those goods at the time when the customs debt in respect of them is incurred.’
8 Title IV of Regulation No 2454/93, entitled ‘Origin of goods’, included a Chapter 2, entitled ‘Preferential origin’. In Section 1A of that chapter, entitled ‘Procedures and methods of administrative cooperation applicable until the application of the registered exporter system’, Article 97k of that regulation provided, in paragraph 5: ‘A proof of origin shall be valid for 10 months from the date of issue in the exporting country and shall be submitted within the said period to the customs authorities of the importing country.’
9 Section 1A also included Article 97n(2) of that regulation, which was worded as follows: ‘Proofs of origin which are submitted to the customs authorities of the importing country after the period of validity mentioned in Article 97k(5) may be accepted for the purpose of applying the tariff preferences, where failure to submit these documents by the final date set is due to exceptional circumstances. In other cases of belated presentation, the customs authorities of the importing country may accept the proofs of origin where the products have been presented to customs before the said final date.’
10 The said Chapter 2 included a Section 2, entitled ‘Beneficiary countries or territories to which preferential tariff measures adopted unilaterally by the [European Union] for certain countries or territories apply’. In subsection 2 of that section, under the heading ‘Proof of origin’, Article 118 of that regulation provided, in paragraphs 1 to 3: ‘1. A proof of origin shall be valid for four months from the date of issue in the exporting country, and shall be submitted within the said period to the customs authorities of the importing country. 2. Proofs of origin which are submitted to the customs authorities of the importing country after the final date for presentation specified in paragraph 1 may be accepted for the purpose of applying the tariff preferences referred to in Article 98, where the failure to submit these documents by the final date set is due to exceptional circumstances. 3. In other cases of belated presentation, the customs authorities of the importing country may accept the proofs of origin where the products have been submitted before the said final date.’
11 As provided in the first and second subparagraphs of Article 147(1) of Regulation No 2454/93: ‘For the purposes of Article 29 of the [Community Customs] Code, the fact that the goods which are the subject of a sale are declared for free circulation shall be regarded as adequate indication that they were sold for export to the customs territory of the [European Union]. In the case of successive sales before valuation, only the last sale, which led to the introduction of the goods into the customs territory of the [European Union], or a sale taking place in the customs territory of the [European Union] before entry for free circulation of the goods shall constitute such indication. Where a price is declared which relates to a sale taking place before the last sale on the basis of which the goods were introduced into the customs territory of the [European Union], it must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the customs authorities that this sale of goods took place for export to the customs territory in question.’
12 Corporación Habanos sold cigars to Altadis (‘the first sale’) and took charge of transporting them from Cuba to the customs warehouse in Angocillo - La Rioja (Spain), into which they were placed by Compañía de Distribución Integral Logista as consignee.
13 Those cigars, which were stored in that customs warehouse under the customs warehousing procedure, had different destinations. In particular, some of those cigars were sold, without having been released for free circulation, for subsequent sale in duty-free shops in airports. Others were sold by Altadis to Compañía de Distribución Integral Logista (‘the second sale’), some to be sold subsequently outside the Union Customs Territory, namely in Ceuta (Spain) and in Melilla (Spain), and some, to tobacconists.
14 As regards the latter cigars, the only goods at issue in the case in the main proceedings, Altadis retained ownership of the cigars until Compañía de Distribución Integral Logista agreed their sale to the tobacconists. At that point, Altadis transferred ownership of those cigars to Compañía de Distribución Integral Logista, which then released them for free circulation so that they could be sold and subsequently supplied to the tobacconists.
15 When the cigars concerned were released for free circulation, their customs value was established and declared on the basis of the first sale.
16 The Tax Authority took the view, however, that the first sale, effected before the goods were placed in the customs warehouse, could not be regarded as having taken place for export to the customs territory of the European Union. Thus, that sale could not be taken into account for the purpose of determining the customs value of the goods under the rules on successive sales laid down in Article 147 of Regulation No 2454/93. The Tax Authority therefore considered that that customs value was to be determined on the basis of the second sale.
17 The Tax Authority also noted that the imported goods, which came from Cuba, from the Dominican Republic, from Panama, Honduras, Mexico, Peru and Egypt, were not eligible for the tariff preferences which had been applied at the time of their release for free circulation by Compañía de Distribución Integral Logista, because two years had elapsed since the proofs of origin enabling those preferences to be applied had been issued.
18 Between January 2015 and January 2018, the Tax Authority issued assessment notices for the years 2012 to 2015 requiring regularisation, inter alia, of customs duties on the two grounds set out in paragraphs 16 and 17, respectively, of the present judgment.
19 Those notices were challenged by Compañía de Distribución Integral Logista before the Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central (Central Tax Tribunal, Spain), which, by decision of 25 October 2018, dismissed the complaint against the regularisation of customs duties.
20 Compañía de Distribución Integral Logista brought an action against that decision before the Audiencia Nacional (National High Court, Spain), which, by a judgment of 9 July 2021, dismissed the action.
21 The Audiencia Nacional (National High Court) found, in the first place, that Article 112(3) of the Community Customs Code did not preclude the application of Article 29(1) of that code. Thus, in so far as it had not been demonstrated that, at the time of the first sale, all of the goods sold to Altadis by Corporación Habanos were intended for export to the customs territory of the European Union or that they had been sent, without exception, to that territory, the customs value was to be determined on the basis of the second sale, which had taken place for export to that territory of the goods that were the subject of that sale.
22 In the second place, the Audiencia Nacional (National High Court) found that the relevant proofs of origin could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of applying the requested preferential arrangements to the goods concerned since those proofs had been sent after the end of the two-year period laid down in the guidance drawn up by the Origin Section of the Customs Code Committee.
23 Compañía de Distribución Integral Logista lodged an appeal in cassation before the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain), which is the referring court.
24 The referring court considers that it is necessary to clarify, first, the detailed rules for determining the customs value of goods imported under the customs warehousing procedure and then released for free circulation in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 76(1)(c) of the Community Customs Code, and, second, the rules concerning the validity of proofs of origin of the goods once a period of two years following the date of issue or establishment of such proof has elapsed, where, during that period, goods that are part of the same quota have been released for free circulation.
25 In those circumstances, the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) In relation to the customs value, is Article 29 [of the Community Customs Code] to be interpreted as laying down only the method for determining the customs value - the transaction value, without prejudice to any upward or downward adjustments that should be made - but not as stipulating the time when that valuation should be carried out? (2) In view of the fact that, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice, for the purposes of Article 29 [of the Community Customs Code] the method for determining the customs value on the basis of the transaction value of goods applies where the goods were sold for export to the European Union, is Article 29 [of that code], in conjunction with Articles 112(3) and 214 [of that code], to be interpreted as meaning that the placing of goods in a customs warehouse using the simplified procedure laid down in Article 76(1)(c) [of that code] entails or permits the presumption that the goods were sold for export to the European Union? Is the answer to the previous question affected in any way where the goods are released for free circulation after the transfer effected while they were in the customs warehouse? (3) If the answers to those two questions are in the negative, taking into account the fact that the customs warehousing arrangement, as a suspensive arrangement, does not determine when the customs debt arises, in so far as it arises when the goods are released for free circulation, must Articles 29, 112(3) and 214 [of the Community Customs Code] nevertheless be interpreted as meaning that the temporal reference for quantifying the customs value is the time when the goods are placed under the customs warehousing arrangement? Alternatively, must those provisions be interpreted as meaning that the customs value is to be calculated at the time when the goods are released for free circulation, that is, when the customs debt arises, even though those goods were previously placed in a customs warehouse? (4) In the case of the rules on successive sales, is it possible to interpret Article 147 [of Regulation No 2454/93] as meaning that, where goods are brought into a customs warehouse, that is sufficient to allow the presumption that the sale which preceded the last sale before the goods were brought into the customs territory was made with a view to export to the European Union? (5) In relation to certificates of origin, are Articles 118 and 97k [of Regulation No 2454/93] to be interpreted as meaning that the submission outside the two-year period of proof that the goods were released for free circulation leads to the loss of application of tariff concessions based on preferential origin, despite the fact that the certificate of origin on which the application for the tariff preference is based was used in previous partial releases for free circulation of imports which took place within that two-year period?’
26 According to settled case-law, in the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it. To that end, the Court may have to reformulate the questions referred to it. It is for the Court to extract from all the information provided by the national court, in particular from the grounds of the order for reference, the points of EU law which require interpretation, having regard to the subject matter of the dispute (see judgments of 17 July 1997, Krüger, C‑334/95, EU:C:1997:378, paragraphs 22 and 23, and of 25 February 2025, Alphabet and Others, C‑233/23, EU:C:2025:110, paragraph 33).
27 In the present case, it follows from the request for a preliminary ruling that the Tax Authority challenged the customs declarations on the ground that the customs value of the goods concerned had been established in the light of their transaction value at the time of the sale that took place before those goods were placed in a customs warehouse within the territory of the European Union. The Tax Authority took the view that what was relevant was the transaction value of those goods at the time of the sale that had taken place while they were placed in that customs warehouse and before they were released for free circulation using the simplified procedure laid down in Article 76(1)(c) of the Community Customs Code.
28 In that context, it is apparent from the information given in that request that the first to fourth questions raised are intended to enable the referring court to determine the relevant point in time for the purpose of establishing the customs value of the goods concerned, and which sale may be taken into account in that regard when the declarant is relying on Article 112(3) of that code.
29 In the light of those considerations, it must be concluded that, by its first to fourth questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 29(1) and Article 112(3) of the Community Customs Code and Article 147 of Regulation No 2454/93 must be interpreted as meaning that, where goods were the subject of a first sale which led to their introduction into the customs territory of the European Union in order to be placed under the customs warehousing procedure and, subsequently, of a second sale on the basis of which they were released for free circulation in accordance with the simplified procedure laid down in Article 76(1)(c) of that code, the relevant point in time for the purpose of determining the customs value of those goods is that of their placement under that customs warehousing procedure, and the customs value of those goods may be determined on the basis of their transaction value at the time of the first sale.
30 According to settled case-law, EU law on customs valuation seeks to introduce a fair, uniform and neutral system excluding the use of arbitrary or fictitious customs values. The customs value must thus reflect the real economic value of an imported good, and must be determined primarily according to the ‘transaction value’ method of the imported goods (see, to that effect, judgments of 19 November 2020, 5th AVENUE Products Trading, C‑775/19, EU:C:2020:948, paragraphs 22 and 24, and of 15 May 2025, Tauritus, C‑782/23, EU:C:2025:353, paragraphs 51 and 54).
31 That method is described in Article 29(1) of the Community Customs Code, according to which the customs value of imported goods is to be the transaction value, that is, the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to the customs territory of the European Union, adjusted, where necessary.
32 It is apparent from the wording of that provision, in particular of the expression ‘sold for export to the customs territory of the [European Union]’, that the transaction value must be equal to a price for export to the European Union. It must therefore be agreed, at the time of sale, that the goods originating in a third country will be transported into the customs territory of the European Union (see judgments of 6 June 1990, Unifert, C‑11/89, EU:C:1990:237, paragraph 11, and of 9 November 2017, LS Customs Services, C‑46/16, EU:C:2017:839, paragraph 27).
33 Nonetheless, that provision does not itself indicate the relevant point in time for the purpose of determining the customs value.
34 It is apparent, however, from Article 214(1) of the Community Customs Code that, save as otherwise expressly provided by that code and without prejudice to Article 214(2), the amount of the import duty or export duty applicable to goods is to be determined on the basis of the rules of assessment appropriate to those goods at the time when the customs debt in respect of them is incurred.
35 That provision sets out the basic rule that customs duties are to be calculated in accordance with the situation at the time when the customs debt was incurred (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 October 2020, Exter, C‑330/19, EU:C:2020:809, paragraph 33).
36 In that regard, under Article 201(1)(a) and (2) of the Community Customs Code, where the chargeable event triggering the debt is the release for free circulation of the goods concerned, the customs debt on importation is incurred at the time of acceptance of the customs declaration in question (see, to that effect, judgment of 1 February 2001, D. Wandel, C‑66/99, EU:C:2001:69, paragraph 41).
37 It follows that, where the customs debt is incurred because of the release for free circulation of the goods concerned, the amount of the import duty applicable to those goods is to be determined on the basis of the rules of assessment appropriate to those goods at the time of acceptance of the customs declaration relating to them.
38 However, in the case of imported goods released for free circulation in accordance with Article 76(1)(c) of the Community Customs Code, the first and second subparagraphs of Article 112(3) of that code provide that the nature, the customs value and the quantity to be taken into account for the purposes of Article 214 of that code are to be those applicable to the goods at the time when they were placed under the customs warehousing procedure, provided that the rules of assessment relating to those goods were ascertained or accepted at the time when the goods were placed under that procedure, unless the declarant requests their application at the time when the customs debt is incurred.
39 It follows that, where the customs debt is incurred because of the release for free circulation of the goods and the conditions set out in Article 112(3) are satisfied, the declarant may declare the customs value of those goods as at the time when the goods were placed under the customs warehousing procedure, rather than as at the time of the declaration of release of those goods for free circulation.
40 Therefore, Article 112(3) of the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, where goods were introduced into the customs territory of the European Union in order to be placed under the customs warehousing procedure and were subsequently released for free circulation in accordance with the simplified procedure laid down in Article 76(1)(c) of that code, the declarant may declare the customs value of those goods as at the time of their placement under that customs warehousing procedure.
41 For the purposes of the application of Article 29(1) of the Community Customs Code, Article 147(1) of Regulation No 2454/93 lays down three rules concerning the proof required in order to establish to the requisite legal standard that goods were sold for export to the customs territory of the European Union, within the meaning of Article 29 of that code.
42 The first subparagraph of Article 147(1) of that regulation provides, in the first sentence, that the fact that the goods which are the subject of a sale are declared for free circulation is to be regarded as adequate indication that they were sold for export to the customs territory of the European Union. In the second sentence, that provision makes clear that, in the case of successive sales before valuation, only the last sale, which led to the introduction of the goods into that territory, or a sale taking place in that territory before entry for free circulation of the goods is to constitute such indication. However, in its second subparagraph, Article 147(1) of that regulation provides that, where a price is declared which relates to a sale taking place before the last sale on the basis of which the goods were introduced into the customs territory of the European Union, it must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the customs authorities that this sale of goods took place for export to that territory.
43 Unlike the situations referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 147(1) of that regulation, for which no further proof is required that the sale concerned took place for export to the customs territory of the European Union, the declarant must, where the customs value declared is the price relating to a sale that took place before the last sale on the basis of which the goods were introduced into that territory, demonstrate that that sale took place for export to that territory.
44 The situations referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 147(1) of that regulation include, in the first sentence of that provision, that of a sale of goods which are declared for free circulation.
45 In that regard, it is not apparent from the wording of that sentence that that sale must immediately precede the release for free circulation of the goods concerned. Consequently, it cannot be ruled out that those goods may have been placed under the customs warehousing procedure between their sale and their release for free circulation.
46 It should also be noted that, according to the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 147(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, in the case of successive sales before valuation, the price of the last sale, which led to the introduction of the goods into the customs territory of the European Union, may be declared as the customs value.
47 Thus, in so far as the price of that sale may be taken into account as the customs value in the case of successive sales, it must a fortiori be possible for that price to be taken into account for that purpose also where, at the time of the valuation, there was only one sale that led to the introduction of the goods into the customs territory of the European Union, and then into the customs warehouse, before their release for free circulation.
48 Taking such a price into account is consistent with the objective of Article 147 of Regulation No 2454/93 which is to facilitate the identification of the transaction value of goods that are the subject of one or more sales, while ensuring that that value reflects the real economic value of an imported good.
49 It follows that where the conditions for the application of Article 112(3) of the Community Customs Code are satisfied and, at the time when the goods were placed under the customs warehousing procedure, they had been the subject of a sale which had led to their introduction into the customs territory of the European Union, the customs value of those goods may be determined, under the first subparagraph of Article 147(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, by reference to the transaction value of that sale, without there being any need for further proof that the purpose of that sale was export to the customs territory of the European Union.
50 In those circumstances, in so far as the placing of goods under the customs warehousing procedure implies that those goods may be destined for various future customs-approved treatments or uses, the fact that other goods under the same quota that were placed under that procedure were subsequently sold without being released for free circulation is irrelevant for the purposes of the application of the first subparagraph of Article 147(1) of that regulation.
51 In the light of all of the above considerations, the answer to the first to fourth questions is that Article 29(1) and Article 112(3) of the Community Customs Code and Article 147 of Regulation No 2454/93 must be interpreted as meaning that, where goods were the subject of a first sale which led to their introduction into the customs territory of the European Union in order to be placed under the customs warehousing procedure and, subsequently, of a second sale on the basis of which they were released for free circulation in accordance with the simplified procedure laid down in Article 76(1)(c) of that code, the relevant point in time for the purpose of determining the customs value of those goods is that of their placement under that customs warehousing procedure, and the customs value of those goods may be determined on the basis of their transaction value at the time of the first sale.
52 By the fifth question referred for a preliminary ruling, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 97k(5), Article 97n(2) and Article 118(1) and (3) of Regulation No 2454/93 must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities of the importing country are not obliged to accept, for the purpose of applying tariff preferences to goods, a proof of origin which was submitted to them after the expiry of its period of validity, even though that proof of origin may have previously been submitted to those authorities before the expiry of its period of validity for the application of tariff preferences to other goods under the same quota.
53 As a preliminary point, it should be stated that, although the participants in the hearing expressed doubts as to whether Article 118 of Regulation No 2454/93 is applicable in the dispute in the main proceedings, it is for the referring court to ascertain whether, in addition to Article 97k(5) and Article 97n(2) of that regulation, Article 118 of that regulation applies to some of the countries exporting the goods at issue in the main proceedings.
54 In the first place, Article 97k(5) of Regulation No 2454/93 provides that a proof of origin is to be valid for 10 months from its date of issue in the exporting country and is to be submitted within the said period to the customs authorities of the importing country. In accordance with Article 97n(2) of that regulation, proofs of origin which are submitted to those customs authorities after that period of validity may be accepted for the purpose of applying the tariff preferences, where failure to submit those documents by the final date set is due to exceptional circumstances. According to that provision, in other cases of belated presentation, those customs authorities may accept the proofs of origin where the products have been presented to customs before the said final date.
55 In the second place, Article 118(1) of Regulation No 2454/93 provides that a proof of origin is to be valid for four months from the date of issue in the exporting country, and that it is to be submitted within the said period to the customs authorities of the importing country, while Article 118(2) provides that proofs of origin which are submitted to those customs authorities after the final date for presentation specified in paragraph 1 may be accepted for the purpose of applying the tariff preferences referred to in Article 98 of that regulation, where the failure to submit those documents by the final date set is due to exceptional circumstances. In other cases of belated presentation, Article 118(3) of that regulation provides that those customs authorities may accept the proofs of origin where the products have been submitted before the said final date.
56 Both sets of provisions prescribe the period of validity and the period for presentation of proofs of origin of imported goods for the purposes of the application of the tariff preferences referred to. In order to ensure that such application is justified, those periods in particular enable the customs authorities of importing countries to carry out the necessary physical and documentary checks for that purpose.
57 In addition, the second sentence of Article 97n(2) and Article 118(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 cover cases in which the proof of origin of goods has not been presented to the customs authorities of the importing country within the period prescribed for reasons that do not relate to exceptional circumstances. In those cases, provided that the goods have been presented to those customs authorities before the end of that period, those customs authorities will be able to accept that proof.
58 That possibility is not further regulated by those provisions. It is therefore for the customs authorities of the importing country to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether particular goods are eligible for preferential tariff treatment on the basis of a belatedly presented proof of origin, having regard in particular to the objective of those provisions, which is to enable those authorities to verify the actual origin of the goods concerned.
59 It follows that those authorities are not obliged to accept a proof of origin after the periods prescribed for that purpose, even if that proof of origin was presented at the time of the release for free circulation, within the prescribed period, of goods that are part of the same quota as those for which that proof of origin was belatedly presented. That circumstance does not in itself preclude the need, for the purpose of applying preferential tariff treatment, for physical and documentary checks to be carried out on the basis of the proof of origin of those goods on their release for free circulation.
60 In the light of all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the fifth question is that Article 97k(5), Article 97n(2) and Article 118(1) and (3) of Regulation No 2454/93 must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities of the importing country are not obliged to accept, for the purpose of applying tariff preferences to goods, a proof of origin which was submitted to them after the expiry of its period of validity, even though that proof of origin may have previously been submitted to those authorities before the expiry of its period of validity for the application of tariff preferences to other goods under the same quota.
61 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.