Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/15

(Case C-432/10)

()

2010/C 301/23

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ministerie van Financiën, Openbaar Ministerie

Defendants: Aboulkacem Chihabi and Others

Questions referred

In relation to Article 221 of the Community Customs Code

(a)

1.Are Article 221(1) and Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992, as applicable prior to amendment by Article 1(17) of Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, to be interpreted as meaning that a document which communicates the amount of duty and which is notified to the debtor by the customs authorities may be regarded as the communication of the amount of duty to the debtor referred to in Article 221(1) and Article 221(3) of the Customs Code only if the amount of duty has been entered in the accounts by the customs authorities (that is to say, has been recorded in the accounts or any other medium performing the same function) prior to notification to the debtor by means of the aforementioned document?

2.Does an infringement of Article 221(1) of the Community Customs Code (Regulation No 2913/92), which provides that the entry of a customs debt in the accounts must precede communication of that debt — in the sense that it is clear that communication of the customs debt (2 July 2004) occurred before the debt was entered in the accounts (second quarter of 2005) — lead to the lapse of the right to post-clearance recovery on the part of the Administration?

3.Is Article 221(1) of the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that there can be no legally valid communication of a customs debt to a putative debtor if no evidence can be produced of prior entry of the customs debt in the accounts?

4.Is any communication of a customs debt to the debtor as referred to in Article 221(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 that is not preceded by the prior entry of the customs debt in the accounts to be regarded as an invalid or non-existent communication precluding recovery of the customs debt by the customs authorities unless, following the entry of the customs debt in the accounts, there is a new communication within the period prescribed for that purpose?

In relation to Article 202 of the Community Customs Code

(b)

1.Is Article 202(1)(a) of the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that the introduction into the customs territory of the Community of goods liable to import duties is unlawful solely because those goods are incorrectly designated in the summary declaration provided for in Article 43 of the Customs Code, notwithstanding the fact that:

the second subparagraph of Article 202(1) of the Customs Code refers only to Articles 38 to 41 and the second indent of Article 177 of the Customs Code, and not to Article 43 thereof;

the responsibility for the accuracy of the information given in the declaration that is provided for in Article 199(1) of implementing Regulation No 2454/93 relates only to the customs declaration and not to the summary declaration;

it is impossible, both in practical and in legal terms, for the person who has to make the summary declaration to verify which goods are in the containers?

2.If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, is Article 202(3) of the Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that a person (the shipping agent) who lodges a summary declaration in the name of and on behalf of his principal (the shipowner) is regarded as a ‘person who introduced such goods unlawfully’ within the meaning of the first indent of that provision merely on account of the fact that the summary declaration contains an incorrect designation?

3.If the answer to question 2 is in the negative, is Article 202(3) of the Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that that provision precludes a national provision, such as Article 24.2 of the Belgian General Law on Customs and Excise Duty (‘A.W.D.A.’), according to which a person who has lodged a summary declaration in the name of and on behalf of another is automatically deemed to be the debtor of the customs debt and is not given the opportunity to show that he did not participate in the unlawful introduction of the goods and did not know or could not reasonably have known that they were being introduced unlawfully?

4.Is Article 5 of the Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that that provision precludes a national provision, such as Article 24.2 A.W.D.A., which prevents the use of direct representation, that is to say, representation by a person acting in the name of and on behalf of the principal, because that person is automatically deemed to be responsible for the customs debt in the event that a summary declaration contains an incorrect designation?

5.Where a summary declaration is lodged in which the goods being introduced are designated incorrectly, giving rise to a customs debt under Article 202(1) of Regulation No 2913/92, must the person who drew up and signed the summary declaration, whether as the direct or indirect representative of the person who introduced the goods into the customs territory of the Community, be regarded as having caused the unlawful introduction of the goods and thus be deemed to be the debtor within the meaning of the first indent of Article 202(3) of Regulation No 2913/92 where that person has, for the purposes of lodging the summary declaration, relied exclusively on the information provided to him by the captain of the ship by which the goods were introduced into the Community and it was, in practice, impossible — in view of the large quantity of containers on board to be unloaded in the port of entry — for him to check whether the contents of the containers presented to the customs authorities were actually consistent with the documents provided and on the basis of which the summary declaration was drawn up?

6.Are the captain of the ship and the shipping company which he represents to be regarded as having caused the unlawful introduction of goods into the Community and, consequently, as the customs debtor within the meaning of the first indent of Article 202(3) of Regulation No 2913/92 where, on the basis of the information provided by the captain, a summary declaration is lodged by his representative in which the goods introduced are designated incorrectly, giving rise to a customs debt under Article 202(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 on account of the unlawful introduction of goods into the Community?

7.In the event that the answer(s) to questions 5 and/or 6 is/are in the negative, can the persons referred to in questions 5 and/or 6 be regarded, in the circumstances, as customs debtors within the meaning of the second indent of Article 202(3) of Regulation No 2913/92?

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17).

(<span class="super">3</span>) Algemene Wet inzake Douane en Accijnzen