- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-75/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Lifosa’ UAB v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 29(1) — Article 32(1)(e)(i) — Union Customs Code — Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 — Article 70(1) — Article 71(1)(e)(i) — Determination of the customs value — Transaction value — Adjustment — Price including delivery at the border)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CA0075
62020CA0075
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
14.6.2021
Official Journal of the European Union
C 228/8
(Case C-75/20) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 29(1) - Article 32(1)(e)(i) - Union Customs Code - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Article 70(1) - Article 71(1)(e)(i) - Determination of the customs value - Transaction value - Adjustment - Price including delivery at the border)
(2021/C 228/10)
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: ‘Lifosa’ UAB
Respondent: Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
Third parties: Kauno teritorinė muitinė, ‘Transchema’ UAB
Operative part of the judgment
Article 29(1) and Article 32(1)(e)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Article 70(1) and Article 71(1)(e)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of determining the customs value of imported goods, the costs actually incurred by the producer for their transport to the place where they have been brought into the customs territory of the European Union should not be added to the transaction value of the goods when, according to the agreed delivery terms, the obligation to cover those costs lies with the producer, even though those costs exceed the price actually paid by the importer, provided that that price corresponds to the real value of the goods, a matter which is for the referring court to establish.
(*) Language of the case: Lithuanian.