Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62016CN0046

Case C-46/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 January 2016 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA ‘LS Customs Services’

OJ C 111, 29.3.2016, p. 14–15 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

29.3.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/14


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 January 2016 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA ‘LS Customs Services’

(Case C-46/16)

(2016/C 111/17)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant: SIA ‘LS Customs Services’

Questions referred

1.

Should Article 29(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that the method laid down in that article is also applicable when the import of the goods and their release for free circulation in the customs territory of the Community took place as a consequence of the fact that during the transit procedure the goods were removed from customs supervision, the goods concerned being goods liable to import duties, and the goods were not sold for export to the customs territory of the Community but for export outside the Community?

2.

Should the expression ‘sequentially’ used in Article 30(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, in the light of the right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union read together with the principle that reasons must be stated for administrative measures, be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be able to conclude that the applicable method is that set out in Article 31 of the regulation, the customs authorities are under an obligation to state in all administrative measures why in those specific circumstances the methods for determination of customs value of goods set out in Articles 29 and 30 cannot be used?

3.

Should it be deemed to be sufficient, to exclude the application of the method in Article 30(2)(a) of the Customs Code, that the customs authority declare that it does not have in its possession the appropriate information, or is the customs authority obliged to obtain information from the producer?

4.

Must the customs authority state reasons why the methods established in Article 30(2)(c) and (d) of the Customs Code are not to be used, if it determines the price of similar goods on the basis of Article 151(3) of Regulation No 2454/93? (2)

5.

Must the decision of the customs authority contain a full statement of reasons as to what information is available in the Community, within the meaning of Article 31 of the Customs Code, or can it produce that statement of reasons subsequently, in legal proceedings, submitting more complete evidence?


(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.


Top