VATupdate

Share this post on

ECJ Excise Duty Case C-332/21 (Quadrant Amroq Beverages SRL) – AG Opinion – Excise Duty Exemption for Ethyl Alcohol intended to be used and already used

On July 14, the ECJ issued the AG Opinion in the ECJ Excise Duty Case C-332/21 (Quadrant Amroq Beverages SRL)

Context: Reference for a preliminary ruling – Excise duty – Directive 92/83/EEC – Article 27(1)(e) – Ethyl alcohol – Exemptions – Production of flavours for the preparation of non‑alcoholic beverages with an alcohol strength not exceeding 1.2% volume – Recognition by the Member State of destination of an exemption granted by the Member State of production – Conditions imposed by the Member State of destination


Questions

(1)      Must Article 27(1)(e) of [Directive 92/83] be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from excise duty covers only ethyl alcohol-type goods used for the production of flavours intended, in turn, for the production of non-alcoholic beverages with an alcohol strength not exceeding 1.2% volume, or as meaning that that exemption also covers ethyl alcohol-type goods already used for the production of certain favours of that kind which have been or are to be used for the production of non-alcoholic beverages with an alcohol strength not exceeding 1.2% volume?

(2)      Must Article 27(1)(e) of [Directive 92/83], in the context of the objectives and general scheme of that directive, be interpreted as meaning that, once ethyl alcohol-type goods intended to be marketed in another Member State have already been released for consumption in a first Member State, exempt from excise duty as they are used to obtain flavours intended to be used for the production of non-alcoholic beverages with an alcohol strength not exceeding 1.2% volume, the Member State of destination must treat them in an identical manner within its territory?

(3)      Must Article 27(1)(e) and 27(2)(d) of [Directive 92/83], and the [principles] of effectiveness and [proportionality], be interpreted as authorising a Member State to impose procedural requirements, which make the application of the exemption subject to the user having the status of registered consignee and of authorised warehouse keeper, on the seller of excise goods, despite the fact that the Member State in which those goods were acquired does not impose an obligation relating to the status of tax warehouse keeper on the economic operator which markets them?

(4)      In the light of Article 27(1)(e) of [Directive 92/83], do the principles of proportionality and effectiveness, in the context of the objectives and general scheme of that directive, preclude the exemption provided for therein from being denied to the taxable person of a Member State of destination who has received ethyl alcohol-type goods and who relied on the fact that those goods were deemed to be exempt on the basis of an official interpretation of those provisions of that directive by the tax authorities of the Member State of origin, given consistently and over a long period of time and transposed into national law and applied in practice, but which subsequently turns out to be incorrect, in the event that, given the circumstances, it is possible to exclude any possibility of fraud or evasion of excise duty?’


AG Opinion

(1)      Article 27(1)(e) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages is to be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from excise duty covers both ethyl alcohol that is intended for use, and ethyl alcohol that has already been used, in the production of flavours that are intended for the preparation of non-alcoholic beverages with an alcohol strength not exceeding 1.2% volume.

(2)      Article 27(1)(e) of Directive 92/83 is to be interpreted as meaning that once ethyl alcohol has been released for consumption in a Member State and that Member State has correctly applied the exemption from excise duty under that provision, the Member State of destination must treat it in an identical manner within its territory.

(3)      Article 27(1)(e) of Directive 92/83, and the principles of effectiveness and proportionality, permit a Member State to impose procedural requirements on a trader in excise goods that had obtained the benefit of an exemption from excise duty in the Member State where those goods had been produced and released for consumption only where those procedural requirements are strictly necessary to ensure the correct and straightforward application of the exemption in question and to prevent any evasion, avoidance or abuse. When imposing such procedural requirements, Member States must comply with general principles of EU law, including the principles of proportionality and of effectiveness.


Source 

Sponsors:

VAT news
VAT news

Advertisements:

  • vatcomsult