EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62009CA0488
Case C-488/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación de Transporte Internacional por Carretera (ASTIC) v Administración General del Estado (TIR Convention — Community Customs Code — Transport carried out under cover of a TIR carnet — Guaranteeing association — Irregular unloading — Determination of the place of the offence — Recovery of import duties)
Case C-488/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación de Transporte Internacional por Carretera (ASTIC) v Administración General del Estado (TIR Convention — Community Customs Code — Transport carried out under cover of a TIR carnet — Guaranteeing association — Irregular unloading — Determination of the place of the offence — Recovery of import duties)
Case C-488/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación de Transporte Internacional por Carretera (ASTIC) v Administración General del Estado (TIR Convention — Community Customs Code — Transport carried out under cover of a TIR carnet — Guaranteeing association — Irregular unloading — Determination of the place of the offence — Recovery of import duties)
OJ C 63, 26.2.2011, p. 9–9
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
26.2.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 63/9 |
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación de Transporte Internacional por Carretera (ASTIC) v Administración General del Estado
(Case C-488/09) (1)
(TIR Convention - Community Customs Code - Transport carried out under cover of a TIR carnet - Guaranteeing association - Irregular unloading - Determination of the place of the offence - Recovery of import duties)
2011/C 63/16
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Tribunal Supremo
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Asociación de Transporte Internacional por Carretera (ASTIC)
Defendant: Administración General del Estado
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 221(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Arts 454(3) and 455 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Transport carried out under cover of a TIR carnet — Offences or irregularities — Place — Procedure — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Articles 454 and 455 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 are to be interpreted as meaning that, where the presumption that competence to recover a customs debt lies with the Member State on whose territory an offence committed in the course of a TIR transport operation was detected is rebutted following a judgment establishing that that offence was committed on the territory of another Member State, the customs authorities of the latter Member State become competent to recover that debt, provided that the facts giving rise to the offence became the subject of legal proceedings within two years of the date on which the guaranteeing association for the territory on which the offence was detected was notified thereof; |
|
2. |
Article 455(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, read in conjunction with Article 11(1) of the Customs Convention on the international transport of goods under cover of TIR carnets, signed at Geneva on 14 November 1975, is to be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, a guaranteeing association cannot rely on the limitation period provided for in those provisions where the customs authorities of the Member State for whose territory it is responsible notify it, within a period of one year from the date on which those authorities were informed of an enforceable judgment identifying them as competent, of the facts which gave rise to the customs debt for which it is liable up to the amount that it guarantees. |