Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018CA0001

Case C-1/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — ‘Oribalt Rīga’ SIA, formerly ‘Oriola Rīga’ SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 30(2)(b) and (c) — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 152(1)(a) and (b) — Determination of the customs value of the goods — Definition of ‘similar goods’ — Medicinal products — Account taken of any factor that may have an impact on the economic value of the medicinal product concerned — Time-limit of 90 days in which the imported goods must be sold in the European Union — Mandatory time-limit — No account taken of trade discounts)

OJ C 270, 12.8.2019, p. 8–9 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

12.8.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/8


Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — ‘Oribalt Rīga’ SIA, formerly ‘Oriola Rīga’ SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-1/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 30(2)(b) and (c) - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 152(1)(a) and (b) - Determination of the customs value of the goods - Definition of ‘similar goods’ - Medicinal products - Account taken of any factor that may have an impact on the economic value of the medicinal product concerned - Time-limit of 90 days in which the imported goods must be sold in the European Union - Mandatory time-limit - No account taken of trade discounts)

(2019/C 270/09)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Oribalt Rīga’ SIA, formerly ‘Oriola Rīga’ SIA

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 30(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that when the customs value of goods, such as the medicinal product at issue in the main proceedings, is calculated by applying the deductive method laid down in that provision, the competent national customs authority must, in order to identify ‘similar goods’, take into consideration any relevant factor, such as the respective compositions of those goods, their substitutability in the light of their effects and their commercial interchangeability, thus conducting a factual assessment which takes into account any factor that may have an impact on the real economic value of those goods, including the market position of the imported goods and of their manufacturer.

2.

Article 152(1)(b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine the unit price of imported goods using the method laid down in Article 30(2)(c) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 82/97, the time-limit of 90 days within which the imported goods must be sold in the European Union, referred to in Article 152(1)(b) of Regulation No 2454/93, is a mandatory time-limit.

3.

Article 30(2)(c) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 82/97, must be interpreted as meaning that reductions in the sales price of the imported goods cannot be taken into account in determining the customs value of those goods pursuant to that provision.


(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.


Top