Case C 262/10

Döhler Neuenkirchen GmbH

v

Hauptzollamt Oldenburg

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof)

‛Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 204(1)(a) — Inward processing procedure — System of suspension — Incurrence of a customs debt — Non-fulfilment of an obligation to supply the bill of discharge within the prescribed period’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 6 September 2012

1. Judicial proceedings — Oral procedure — Reopening — Obligation to reopen the oral procedure in order to allow the parties to submit observations on points of law raised in the Opinion of the Advocate General which has not been debated between the parties — Absence of such an obligation

   (Art. 252, second para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 61)

2. Customs union — Incurrence of a customs debt following the non-fulfilment of an obligation relating to the use of the customs procedure in question — Failures which have no effect on the correct operation of the customs procedure — Scope — Failure to observe the time limit for submission of the bill of discharge — Exclusion — Risk of the incurrence of a double customs debt — Assessment by the national courts

   (Council Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/204, Art. 204(1)(a); Commission Regulations No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 214/2007, Art. 521(1), first para., and 859, para. 9)

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 29, 30)

2.  Article 204(1)(a) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, must be interpreted as meaning that the non-fulfilment of the obligation to submit the bill of discharge to the supervising office within 30 days of the expiry of the period for discharging the relevant procedure laid down in the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 521(1) of Regulation No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 214/2007, gives rise to a customs debt in respect of the entire quantity of the imported goods covered by the bill of discharge, including those re-exported outside the territory of the European Union, where the conditions set out in Article 859(9) of Regulation No 2454/93 are not considered to be fulfilled.

   In those circumstances, the incurrence of a customs debt does not have the nature of a penalty, but must rather be regarded as the consequence of the finding that the conditions required to obtain the advantage derived from the application of the inward processing procedure in the form of a system of suspension have not been fulfilled. That procedure implies the granting of a conditional advantage, which cannot be granted if the applicable conditions are not respected, thereby making the suspension inapplicable and consequently justifying the imposition of customs.

   As regards the risk of the incurrence of a double customs debt for the goods which were not re-exported, it is for the referring court to ensure that the customs authorities do not impose a second customs debt for goods in respect of which a customs debt has already been incurred on the basis of an earlier chargeable event.

   (see paras 43, 46-48, operative part)

Case C 262/10

Döhler Neuenkirchen GmbH

v

Hauptzollamt Oldenburg

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof)

‛Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 204(1)(a) — Inward processing procedure — System of suspension — Incurrence of a customs debt — Non-fulfilment of an obligation to supply the bill of discharge within the prescribed period’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 6 September 2012

1. Judicial proceedings — Oral procedure — Reopening — Obligation to reopen the oral procedure in order to allow the parties to submit observations on points of law raised in the Opinion of the Advocate General which has not been debated between the parties — Absence of such an obligation

   (Art. 252, second para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 61)

2. Customs union — Incurrence of a customs debt following the non-fulfilment of an obligation relating to the use of the customs procedure in question — Failures which have no effect on the correct operation of the customs procedure — Scope — Failure to observe the time limit for submission of the bill of discharge — Exclusion — Risk of the incurrence of a double customs debt — Assessment by the national courts

   (Council Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/204, Art. 204(1)(a); Commission Regulations No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 214/2007, Art. 521(1), first para., and 859, para. 9)

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 29, 30)

2.  Article 204(1)(a) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, must be interpreted as meaning that the non-fulfilment of the obligation to submit the bill of discharge to the supervising office within 30 days of the expiry of the period for discharging the relevant procedure laid down in the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 521(1) of Regulation No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 214/2007, gives rise to a customs debt in respect of the entire quantity of the imported goods covered by the bill of discharge, including those re-exported outside the territory of the European Union, where the conditions set out in Article 859(9) of Regulation No 2454/93 are not considered to be fulfilled.

   In those circumstances, the incurrence of a customs debt does not have the nature of a penalty, but must rather be regarded as the consequence of the finding that the conditions required to obtain the advantage derived from the application of the inward processing procedure in the form of a system of suspension have not been fulfilled. That procedure implies the granting of a conditional advantage, which cannot be granted if the applicable conditions are not respected, thereby making the suspension inapplicable and consequently justifying the imposition of customs.

   As regards the risk of the incurrence of a double customs debt for the goods which were not re-exported, it is for the referring court to ensure that the customs authorities do not impose a second customs debt for goods in respect of which a customs debt has already been incurred on the basis of an earlier chargeable event.

   (see paras 43, 46-48, operative part)