Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/14

(Case C-230/08)

(2008/C 197/24)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dansk Transport og Logistik

Defendant: Skatteministeriet (Danish Ministry of Taxation)

Questions referred

1.Is the expression ‘seized … and simultaneously or subsequently confiscated’ contained in Article 233d of the Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that the provision covers situations where goods detained under the first sentence of Paragraph 83(1) of the Customs Law on unlawful importation are simultaneously or subsequently destroyed by the customs authorities without their having left the authorities' possession?

2.Is the System Directive to be interpreted as meaning that unlawfully imported goods which are seized on importation or simultaneously or subsequently destroyed are to be deemed to have been placed under ‘a suspension arrangement’ with the effect that the excise duty is not incurred or is extinguished (see the first subparagraph of Article 5(2) and Article 6(1)(c) of the System Directive, read in conjunction with Articles 84(1)(a) and 98 of the Customs Code, and Article 876a of the implementing provisions)? Is the answer affected by whether or not a customs debt incurred on such unlawful importation is extinguished under Article 233d of the Customs Code?

3.Is the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as meaning that unlawfully imported goods seized on importation and simultaneously or subsequently destroyed by the authorities are to be deemed to have been placed under a ‘customs warehousing procedure’ with the effect that the VAT debt is not incurred or is extinguished (See Articles 7(3), 10(3) and 16(1)(B)(c) of the Sixth Directive and Article 876a of the implementing provisions)? Is the answer affected by whether or not a customs debt incurred on such unlawful importation is extinguished under Article 233d of the Customs Code?

4.Are the Customs Code, the implementing provisions and the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities in the Member State where unlawful importation of goods during a TIR operation is detected are competent to charge customs duty, excise duty and VAT on the operation where the authorities in another Member State, where the unlawful importation into the Community occurred, did not detect the irregularity and consequently did not charge customs duty, excise duty and VAT (see Article 215 of the Customs Code, read in conjunction with Article 217 thereof, Articles 454(2) and (3) of the implementing provisions then in force, and Article 7 of the Sixth Directive)?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1).

(2) Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1).

(3) 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 (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1).

(4) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).