Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62008CA0430

Joined Cases C-430/08 and C-431/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 January 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Edinburgh and the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Northern Ireland — United Kingdom) — Terex Equipment Ltd (C-430/08), FG Wilson (Engineering) Ltd (C-431/08), Caterpillar EPG Ltd (C-431/08) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code — Articles 78 and 203 — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 865 — Inward processing procedure — Incorrect customs procedure code — Circumstances under which a customs debt is incurred — Revision of a customs declaration)

OJ C 63, 13.3.2010, p. 11–12 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

13.3.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/11


Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 January 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Edinburgh and the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Northern Ireland — United Kingdom) — Terex Equipment Ltd (C-430/08), FG Wilson (Engineering) Ltd (C-431/08), Caterpillar EPG Ltd (C-431/08) v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

(Joined Cases C-430/08 and C-431/08) (1)

(Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code - Articles 78 and 203 - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 865 - Inward processing procedure - Incorrect customs procedure code - Circumstances under which a customs debt is incurred - Revision of a customs declaration)

2010/C 63/17

Language of the case: English

Referring court

VAT and Duties Tribunal, Edinburgh and the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Northern Ireland — United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Terex Equipment Ltd (C-430/08), FG Wilson (Engineering) Ltd (C-431/08), Caterpillar EPG Ltd (C-431/08)

Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Edinburgh Tribunal Centre — Interpretation of Articles 78, 203 and 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Interpretation of Article 865 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) — Goods entered into the European Community under the inward processing relief system — Mistaken use of an incorrect customs procedure code (CPC) on declarations made when the goods were re-exported from the Community, identifying the goods as ‘permanent export’ rather than ‘re-export’ — Possibility of revising the export declaration in order to correct the CPC and regularise the situation

Operative part of the judgment

1.

The use in the export declarations at issue in the main proceedings of customs code 10 00 indicating the export of Community goods, instead of code 31 51 used for goods for which duties are suspended under the inward processing procedure, gives rise to a customs debt pursuant to Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and the first paragraph of Article 865 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1677/98 of 29 July 1998.

2.

Article 78 of Regulation No 2913/92 permits the revision of the export declaration of the goods in order to correct the customs procedure code given to them by the declarant, and the customs authorities are obliged, first, to assess whether the provisions governing the customs procedure concerned have been applied on the basis of incorrect or incomplete information and whether the objectives of the inward processing regime have not been threatened, in particular in that the goods subject to that customs procedure have actually been re-exported, and, second, where appropriate, to take the measures necessary to regularise the situation, taking account of the new information available to them.


(1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


Top