On
Context:
Facts
By official report of an administrative offense dated 02/09/2019, SC Zes Zollner Electronic SRL (applicant) was punished with an administrative fine of RON 3,000 and, in addition, with seizure of the countervalue of the non-cleared goods, due to an administrative offense consisting in the withdrawal of 5 000 integrated circuits worth EUR 4 590 from customs control. Although there were two invoices for 5 000 integrated circuits each, the applicant submitted one electronic transport document to the customs border office in Romania, releasing only 5 000 pieces for free circulation. In its accounts, however, the applicant recorded the total quantity (10 000) of integrated circuits imported. The customs authorities concluded from that that the applicant withdrew 5 000 integrated circuits worth EUR 4 590 from customs control and drew up the said official report. The applicant has lodged an administrative appeal against this official report. At first instance, her claim was dismissed. The applicant appealed against the judgment at first instance to the referring court. In support of the appeal, it argues that it was wrongly established that those 5 000 integrated circuits were exempt from customs control. On the contrary, it acted in good faith and itself brought the alleged infringement to the attention of customs. There is therefore no question of abstraction, but of a material error.
Consideration:
The referring court points out that its assessment in the case depends on the application and interpretation of Article 173 of Regulation 952/2013, since it is disputed in the present case whether that article applies or not and how the concept of ‘goods other than those to which the customs declaration originally concerned’ must be interpreted. Both the customs and the court of first instance have ruled that Article 173 of Regulation 952/2013 does not apply because that article cannot refer to goods other than the 5,000 integrated circuits for which the customs declaration was drawn up. In that context, the referring court asks the Court to determine whether Article 173 or Article 174 of Regulation 952/2013 is applicable in the main proceedings. In addition, that court wonders whether that regulation contains any other procedure which would enable an error such as that in the present case to be rectified without being held to administrative liability.
Questions
1. Where the consignee finds that there are more goods than those indicated in the initial customs declaration, does Article 173 or 174 of Regulation [No] 952/2013 apply?
2. Does the phrase ‘other goods than those to which [the customs declaration] originally referred’ in Article 173 of [that] Regulation refer to other goods from a quantitative, qualitative or both perspective?
3. If the recipient finds more goods than indicated in the customs declaration, does the Regulation provide him with a procedure that allows him to rectify the errors without being subject to administrative or criminal sanctions?
AG Opinion
Decision
Summary
Source
Similar ECJ cases
How did countries implement the case? Your feedback appreciated! Let us know
Newsletters
