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
(2020/C 137/52)
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Applicant and appellant: ‘Lifosa’ AB
Defendant and respondent: Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
Are Articles 29(1) and 32(1)(e)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Articles 70(1) and 71(1)(e)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that the transaction (customs) value must be adjusted to include all the costs actually incurred by the seller (producer) in transporting the goods to the place where they were brought into the customs territory of the European Union (Community) when, as in the present case, (1) under the delivery conditions (‘Incoterms 2000’ — DAF) the obligation to cover those costs was borne by the seller (producer) and (2) those costs of transport exceeded the price that was agreed upon and was actually paid (payable) by the buyer (importer), but (3) the price actually paid (payable) by the buyer (importer) corresponded to the real value of the goods, even if that price was insufficient to cover all the costs of transport incurred by the seller (producer)?
(1) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
(2) OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.