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
2013/C 26/41
Language of the case: Dutch
Appellant: Minister van Financiën
(a)Must Articles 203 CCC [Community Customs Code] and 204 CCC, read in conjunction with Article 859 (in particular Article 859(2)(c)) CCIP [Regulation implementing the Community Customs Code], be interpreted as meaning that the (mere) exceeding of the transportation time-limit set in accordance with Article 356(1) CCIP does not lead to a customs debt being incurred by reason of a removal from customs supervision within the meaning of Article 203 CCC, but to a customs debt being incurred on the basis of Article 204 CCC?
(b)Does an affirmative answer to Question 1 require that the persons concerned supply the customs authorities with information regarding the reasons for exceeding the time-limit or that they at least explain to the customs authorities where the goods were held during the time which elapsed between the time-limit set in accordance with Article 356 [CCIP] and the time at which they were actually presented at the customs office of destination?
Must the Sixth Directive, in particular Article 7 of that directive, be interpreted as meaning that VAT becomes chargeable when a customs debt is incurred exclusively on the basis of Article 204 CCC?
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
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 1993 L 253, p. 1).
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 1977 L 145, p. 1).