General Court Excise T-690/24 (Kolinsen) – Judgment – Member State of arrival competent to levy excise duty in the event of irregularity detected on arrival

On November 26, 2025, the General Court issued its judgment in the case T-690/24 (Kolinsen).

Context: Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Excise duties – Directive 2008/118/EC – Article 10(2) and (4) of Directive 2008/118 – Occurrence of an irregularity during a movement of excise goods – Movement of goods under a duty suspension arrangement – Detection of the irregularity during the movement – Quantity of missing goods detected when unloading the means of transport

Summary

The General Court addressed the interpretation of Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/118/EC concerning excise duties in a case involving the delivery of ethyl alcohol from Belgium to the Netherlands. The court was tasked with determining whether the irregularity related to missing goods should be attributed to the Member State of arrival (the Netherlands) or the Member State of dispatch (Belgium).
The referring court questioned whether the discovery of a shortfall in the quantity of goods during unloading constituted an irregularity detected during the movement of goods or if it related to a situation where goods had not arrived at their destination. The General Court clarified that the irregularity is deemed to occur in the State of arrival when the missing quantity is identified upon unloading.
The court reiterated that under the directive, the movement of excise goods is considered incomplete until the consignee has accurately assessed the quantity received. The detection of missing goods during unloading is thus part of the movement, making the Netherlands responsible for the excise duty.
The General Court emphasized that the interpretation of Article 10(2) does not render Article 10(4) meaningless, as the latter still applies to situations where discrepancies are identified after the movement has officially ended. This differentiation allows for the applicability of both provisions under different circumstances.
Ultimately, the General Court concluded that the excise duty is chargeable in the State of arrival (the Netherlands) when the irregularity is detected upon unloading. This ruling reinforces the framework for determining excise duty liability in cases involving cross-border movements of goods under duty suspension.

Questions

Is Article 10(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC ¹ of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC ² to be interpreted as meaning that the conditions laid down in that provision are fulfilled in a case where the goods moved under the duty suspension arrangement have not arrived, or have not arrived in their entirety, at their destination, and that shortfall has not been detected until the means of transport was unloaded, so that that detection of the shortfall constitutes the irregularity and the Member State of arrival therefore has the competence to levy the duty? Or is the earlier event, which remains unknown, which led to the shortfall to be regarded as the irregularity referred to in Article 10(4) of Directive 2008/118/EC, so that the Member State of dispatch has the competence to levy the duty?

AG Opinion

None

Decision

Article 10(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC

must be interpreted as applying to a situation in which excise goods moving under a duty suspension arrangement have not arrived in their entirety at their destination and the missing quantity of goods has not been detected until the means of transport containing those goods was unloaded, so that, since the irregularity within the meaning of that provision is thus deemed to have occurred in the State of arrival, excise duty is chargeable there.

Source

Curia

Newsletters

Member State of arrival competent to levy excise duty in the event of irregularity detected on arrival

The Court ruled that the Netherlands has the right to tax excise duties as the Member State of arrival, determining that the irregularity in the shipment of ethyl alcohol occurred within its jurisdiction when a deficit of 13,971 liters was discovered upon arrival.
FL (Kolinsen), a Belgian company, had shipped the alcohol under excise duty suspension but faced a tax of €48,294 after the shortfall was identified, leading to a dispute regarding the responsibility for the excise duty.
The Court of Justice of the European Union concluded that under Article 10(2) of EC Directive 2008/118, the irregularity is recognized when the goods are unloaded and a shortage is detected, thereby affirming the Netherlands’ entitlement to levy taxes on the missing quantity.

Source Taxlive