Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/8

(Case C-599/20) (*)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 29 - Determination of the customs value - Transaction value - Article 29(1)(d) - Concept of ‘related persons’ - Article 31 - Account taken of information derived from a national database for the purpose of determining the customs value - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 143(1)(b), (e) and (f) - Situations in which persons are deemed to be related - Article 181a - Doubts based on the veracity of the price declared)

(2022/C 294/10)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ‘Baltic Master’ UAB

Defendant: Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Interested party: Vilniaus teritorinė muitinė

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 29(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, and Article 143(1)(b), (e) and (f) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 46/1999 of 8 January 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that:

—the buyer and the seller may not be deemed to be legally recognised partners or to be related on account of a direct or indirect relationship of de jure control in a situation in which no document exists which makes it possible to establish such a relationship;

—the buyer and the seller may be deemed to be related on account of a direct or indirect relationship of de facto control in a situation in which the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the transactions at issue, substantiated by objective elements, may be regarded as demonstrating not only that there is a close relationship of trust between that buyer and that seller, but that one of them is in a position to exercise constraint or direction over the other or that a third party is in a position to exercise such constraint or direction over them.

2.Article 31(1) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 82/97, must be interpreted as not prohibiting the determination of the customs value of imported goods, where it could not be determined in accordance with Articles 29 and 30 of that code, on the basis of information contained in a national database relating to a customs value of goods which have the same origin and which, although not ‘similar’ within the meaning of Article 142(1)(d) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 46/1999, are ascribed to the same TARIC code.

* Language of the case: English.

(1) OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.