European Court of Justice

Local Contact

20 Jan 2025
Subject Tax updates
Categories Tax

Overview:

ECJ ruling (Case C-506/23, Network One Distribution) regarding late payment penalty in addition to interest on arrears in relation to recovery of anti-dumping duties

Customs – Judgment in Case C-506/23 (Network One Distribution) - Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Incurrence and recovery of a customs debt – Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 – Recovery of anti-dumping duties relating to imports from China – Charging of interest on arrears under Regulation No 952/2013 – National legislation providing for the imposition of a late payment penalty in addition to interest on arrears

The ECJ rules that Article 114 UCC must be interpreted as not precluding a national administrative practice under which a late payment penalty, provided for by national legislation, may be imposed in addition to the interest on arrears provided for in that article.
 

ECJ ruling (Case C-781/23, Malmö Motorrenovering) regarding the period during which goods may remain under a temporary admission procedure

Customs – Judgment in Case C-781/23 (Malmö Motorrenovering) - Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Union Customs Code – Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 – Article 250 – Temporary admission procedure – Article 251 – Period during which goods imported under that procedure may remain – Period insufficient for achieving the objective of authorised use – Customs debt incurred through non-compliance with that period – Conditions for extending that period – Importation of a racing car

The ECJ rules that Article 251 UCC, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/474 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019, must be interpreted as meaning that an extension of the period during which goods placed under the temporary admission procedure, determined on the basis of paragraph 1 of that article, does not require the existence of "exceptional circumstances", within the meaning of paragraph 3 of that article, where that extension does not mean that the overall period during which those goods may remain under that procedure exceeds the maximum duration of 24 months laid down in paragraph 2 of that article.
 

ECJ ruling (Case C-388/23, Golden Omega) regarding tariff classification of fish oil in the form of ethyl esters

Customs – Judgment in Case C-388/23 (Golden Omega) - Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 – Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Heading 1516 – Fats and oils and their fractions – Fish oil in the form of ethyl esters – Esterification of fatty acids with ethanol – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1661 – Validity

The ECJ rules that:

  1. Heading 1516 of the Combined Nomenclature in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1602 of 11 October 2018, must be interpreted as not covering fish oil in the form of ethyl esters, obtained by esterification of fatty acids with ethanol.
  2. The examination of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1661 of 24 September 2019 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature.
     

ECJ ruling (Cases C-717/22 and C-372/23, Sistem Lux) regarding effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties in customs law

Customs – Judgment in Cases C-717/22 and C-372/23 (Sistem Lux) - Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 – Union Customs Code – Article 15 – Provision of information to the customs authorities – Failure to comply with the customs legislation – Article 42 – Effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties – Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA – Confiscation of crime-related proceeds, instrumentalities and property – Articles 2(1) – Confiscation – National provision providing for the imposition of a fine of between 100% and 200% of the customs value of the goods and confiscation thereof irrespective of the owner

The ECJ rules that:

  1. Article 15 and Article 42(1) UCC must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision which makes it possible to establish a failure to comply with customs legislation on the sole ground of negligence, consisting of failure to use the prescribed form for declaring the goods being transported. By contrast, in such circumstances, those provisions preclude the imposition, on the person who failed to comply, of an administrative penalty which is at least equal to the customs value of the goods in respect of which he or she has failed to comply.
  2. Article 42(1) and (2) UCC, read in conjunction with Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision which, for failure to comply with the customs legislation, provides not only for the imposition of a fine but also for the confiscation of the goods in respect of which the failure to comply has been committed, provided that the system of penalties applicable to that failure to comply, as a whole, complies with the requirement of proportionality.
  3. Article 2(1) of Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property must be interpreted as not applying to a confiscation measure adopted following a failure to comply with the customs legislation if that failure to comply does not constitute a criminal offence punishable by a custodial sentence of more than one year, but an administrative offence.
     

ECJ ruling (Case C-591/23, ZCC Europe) regarding tariff classification of hard metal sticks made of cermets

Customs – Judgment in Case C-591/23 (ZCC Europe) - Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Common Customs Tariff – Combined Nomenclature – Tariff classification – Headings 8113 and 8209 – Hard metal sticks made of cermets – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/910 – Validity – Classification criteria

The ECJ rules that consideration of the question raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/910 of 31 May 2021 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature.
 

ECJ ruling (Case C-596/23, Pohjanri) regarding excise treatment of online purchases of excise goods in another Member State

Excise – Judgment in Case C-596/23 (Pohjanri) - Reference for a preliminary ruling – Excise duties – Directive 2008/118/EC – Article 36(1) – Online purchase of excise goods in another Member State – Transport by a transporter recommended by the vendor – National rules regarding the vendor as liable for the excise duties chargeable in the Member State of destination

The ECJ rules that article 36(1) of the Excise Directive (2008/118/EC)  must be interpreted as meaning that in the situations referred to in that provision, excise goods must be regarded as "dispatched or transported to another Member State directly or indirectly by the vendor or on his behalf", such that that vendor is liable for excise duty in that other Member State, where he or she acts in such a way as to guide the purchaser’s choice of the company responsible for the dispatch and/or transport of those goods by suggesting and facilitating the use of certain companies that can be responsible for that.
 

EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients.