EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/057/17
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 January 2005 in Case C-300/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): Honeywell Aerospace GmbH v Hauptzollamt Gießen (Community transit — Incurrence of a customs debt in the event of offences or irregularities — Consequence of the lack of indication to the principal of the time-limit for furnishing proof of the place where the offence or irregularity occurred)
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 January 2005 in Case C-300/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): Honeywell Aerospace GmbH v Hauptzollamt Gießen (Community transit — Incurrence of a customs debt in the event of offences or irregularities — Consequence of the lack of indication to the principal of the time-limit for furnishing proof of the place where the offence or irregularity occurred)
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 January 2005 in Case C-300/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): Honeywell Aerospace GmbH v Hauptzollamt Gießen (Community transit — Incurrence of a customs debt in the event of offences or irregularities — Consequence of the lack of indication to the principal of the time-limit for furnishing proof of the place where the offence or irregularity occurred)
JO C 57, 5.3.2005, p. 9–9
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
5.3.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 57/9 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Fourth Chamber)
of 20 January 2005
in Case C-300/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): Honeywell Aerospace GmbH v Hauptzollamt Gießen (1)
(Community transit - Incurrence of a customs debt in the event of offences or irregularities - Consequence of the lack of indication to the principal of the time-limit for furnishing proof of the place where the offence or irregularity occurred)
(2005/C 57/17)
Language of the case: German
In Case C-300/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel (Germany), made by decision of 25 April 2003, received at the Court on 11 July 2003, in the proceedings between Honeywell Aerospace GmbH and Hauptzollamt Gießen – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and K. Schiemann, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 January 2005, in which it has ruled:
Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code in conjunction with Article 379 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 a customs debt has been incurred where a consignment placed under the external Community transit procedure has not been presented at the customs office of destination, but that the Member State to which the office of departure belongs may take steps to recover the debt only if it has indicated to the principal that he has three months in which to furnish the proof requested and such proof has not been provided within that period.