Source Curia
On 20 December 2017, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided the widely noted Hamamatsu case and the outcome raised more doubts for importing companies regarding the application of the transfer price than that it provided the anticipated clarity.
Decision
Articles 28 to 31 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 they do not permit an agreed transaction value, composed of an amount initially invoiced and declared and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period, to form the basis for the customs value, without it being possible to know at the end of the accounting period whether that adjustment would be made up or down.
Newsletters
- EY
- EY
- TP Cases
- TPguidelines
- Mihaela Merz
- EY – Retroactieve interne verrekenprijsaanpassingen en de douanewaarde
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- CJEU Rules Non-Transactional Profit Adjustments by Principal Are VAT-Applicable Services in Arcomet Case
- Understanding VAT Implications on Transfer Pricing: Insights from Arcomet Case C-726/23
- VAT Implications on Transfer Pricing Adjustments: Insights from Acromet Towercranes Case
- CJEU Ruling: Transfer Pricing Adjustments Impact VAT in Arcomet Case (C-726/23)
- EU Court of Justice Rules Transfer Pricing Payments Subject to VAT in Arcomet Case
