Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1. Free movement of goods - Community transit - Transportation effected under a TIR carnet - Offences and irregularities - Place where an offence or irregularity was committed - Type of evidence - Application of national law

(Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 454(3), first subpara., and Art. 455(3))

2. Free movement of goods - Community transit - Transportation effected under a TIR carnet - Offences and irregularities - Member State competent to recover taxes and other duties - Member State where offence or irregularity was committed - Recovery by the Member State where the offence was detected where that Member State wrongly considered the evidence submitted to establish where the offence was committed not to be sufficient - Application of the compensation mechanism

(Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 454(2) and (3), third and fourth subparas)

3. Free movement of goods - Community transit - Transportation effected under a TIR carnet - Offences and irregularities - Place where the offence or irregularity was committed - Submission of evidence - Time-limit

(Council Regulation No 2112/78; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 454(3), first subpara., and Art. 455(1))

Summary

1. The first subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, which applies where international transportation of goods is effected under a TIR carnet, must be interpreted as meaning that proof of the place where an offence or irregularity under customs provisions was committed, which is required by the customs authorities of the Member State where that offence or irregularity was detected, does not have to be adduced solely by means of documentary evidence showing that the competent authorities of another Member State have established that the offence or irregularity was committed in that State.

Given that there is no legislation at Community level governing the concept of proof, any type of evidence admissible under the procedural law of the Member States in similar proceedings is in principle admissible. The wording of Article 455(3) of Regulation No 2454/93, in the version of that provision resulting from Regulation No 12/97, cannot lead to a different conclusion. Article 455(3) relates to a different matter, namely proof of the offence or irregularity as such. It cannot be assumed that because, as from 1997, the Community legislature limited the types of admissible evidence for establishing the regularity of transit operations, it intended, by implication, to do the same in relation to the question of establishing where an offence or irregularity was committed.

( see paras 29, 31, 33, operative part 1 )

2. The third and fourth subparagraphs of Article 454(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 laying down provision for the implementation of Council Regulation 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, which applies where international transportation of goods is effected under a TIR carnet, must be interpreted as meaning that the compensation mechanism provided for in that regulation also applies where the duties and other charges were levied by the Member State where the offence under the customs provisions was detected even though satisfactory proof had been furnished that the place where the offence was actually committed was located in another Member State.

If the compensation mechanism comes into operation where a Member State has recovered duties even though, under the rule of principle in Article 454(2) of Regulation No 2454/93, it did not have competence to do so because the place where the offence was committed, determined later, is not located in that State, it must also come into operation in the situation, which is essentially no different, where the Member State which recovered the duties did not have competence under the same rule of principle but wrongly took the view initially that the evidence adduced to establish where the offence was committed was insufficient.

( see para 39-40, operative part 2 )

3. The first subparagraph of Article 454(3) and Article 455(1) of Regulation No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, which apply where international transportation of goods is effected under a TIR carnet, must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities of the Member State where the offence or irregularity under the customs provisions was detected cannot impose on a TIR carnet holder a time-limit of three months for furnishing satisfactory proof of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed.

The first subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 unambiguously refers, as regards the length of the period in question, to Article 455(1) of that regulation. Article 455(1) in turn refers, as regards the time-limit it lays down, to Article 11(1) of the Convention on the international transport of goods under cover of TIR carnets. Since the time-limit laid down in Article 11(1) of that Convention is one year, the time-limit laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 for furnishing proof of the place where the offence or irregularity was committed is also one year.

( see paras 44, 49, operative part 3 )