Comments on GC Customs T-589/24: No partial exemption from import duties in outward processing according to AG General

AG’s Conclusion on Import Duties: Advocate General Brkan determined that applying a partial exemption from import duties under the outward processing procedure is contrary to EU law if the goods are declared to a customs office not specified in the outward processing authorization.
Case Background: A-GmbH received authorization for outward processing for crude groundnut oil but declared the goods at a Dutch customs office instead of the designated German offices. The German customs authority subsequently sought to recover customs duties on the grounds of incorrect procedure.
Legal Interpretation: The AG stated that the customs authority had not granted a cross-border authorization for the Dutch office’s use in this procedure, and therefore, Article 150(2) of the Customs Code cannot be applied in this context.

Summary:

Case Background: A-GmbH received an outward processing authorization from the German Principal Customs Office for exporting crude groundnut oil to Switzerland for processing. However, the company declared the goods at a Dutch customs office not designated in the authorization, leading to a customs duty recovery by the German authorities.
Questions to the Court: The German Federal Fiscal Court sought clarification on whether partial relief from import duties is precluded when goods are declared at an unauthorized customs office, the interpretation of Article 150(2) regarding obligations under the outward processing procedure, and the applicability of Article 86(6) concerning customs debts incurred during processing.
AG’s Decision on Former Regulations: Advocate General Brkan concluded that the customs authority’s prior agreement is essential for using the outward processing procedure, and since the Dutch customs office was not consulted, the goods could not benefit from the duty relief under Article 145(1) of the Community Customs Code.
Justification for the Decision: The AG emphasized that the absence of a single authorization for cross-border processing means the outward processing procedure was not correctly applied, thus failing to meet the necessary conditions for duty exemption. The ruling aligns with the principle that customs procedures must adhere to designated authorizations to protect the interests of EU processors.
AG’s Decision on New Regulations: For the new regulations, the AG affirmed that similar conditions apply post-1 May 2016, stating that the outward processing procedure requires compliance with designated customs offices. Article 86(6) was deemed inapplicable by analogy for customs debts incurred during release for free circulation, reinforcing the necessity for strict adherence to procedural requirements.

AG Opinion

(1) In a situation characterised by placements of Union goods for export to a third country in order to be processed there, carried out until 30 April 2016, at an office of entry in a Member State whose customs authority has not given its prior agreement to the adoption of a single authorisation to use the outward processing procedure:
- Article 85 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, read in conjunction with the fifth indent of Article 84(1) of that regulation, and Article 500(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May 2001, must be interpreted as precluding the partial relief from import duty under the outward processing procedure, provided for in Article 145(1) of Regulation No 2913/92;
  - Article 150(2) of Regulation No 2913/92 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable.
(2) Article 211(1), first subparagraph, point (a), of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code, read in conjunction with the second subparagraph of that provision, must be interpreted as:
- precluding the partial relief from import duties provided for in Article 259(1) of that regulation where temporary export goods are placed, from 1 May 2016, under the outward processing procedure at an office of placement not designated in the authorisation to use that particular customs procedure.

Article 86(6) of Regulation No 952/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable by analogy where a customs debt is incurred on the basis of Article 77(1)(a) of that regulation.

Source Curia