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"
- Blog: Four tax points, one invoice: how C-167/26 RX challenges well-accepted business processes
- EU Customs Reform: Data Hub, Trusted Traders and New Import Models
- Flashback on ECJ Cases C-409/98 (Mirror Group) – Tenant inducements are not exempt property letting
- Roadtrip through ECJ Cases – Focus on Place of Supply of Intra-Community Acquisitions – ”Triangulation” (Art. 42)
- Flashback on ECJ Cases C-415/98 (Bakcsi) – Asset allocation determines VAT treatment of a later sale
