European Court of Justice

ECJ ruling (Case C-376/23, Baltic Container Terminal) regarding the change of customs status of non-Union to Union goods and the discharge of the free zone customs procedure

Customs – Judgment in Case C-376/23 (Baltic Container Terminal) - Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs Union – Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 – Union Customs Code – Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 – Free zones – Change of customs status of non-Union goods to Union goods – Records of the holder of an authorisation to carry on activities in a free zone – Legitimate expectations – Res judicata.

The ECJ rules that:

1. Article 214(1) UCC and Article 178(1)(b) and (c) UCC DR must be interpreted as not precluding the holder of an authorisation to carry on activities in a free zone from including information in its records about the manner in which the free zone customs procedure was discharged and data that allows the identification of any documents, other than a customs declaration, relevant to discharge, without referring, in those records, to the master reference number that identifies the customs declaration that corresponds to the placing of the goods concerned under a subsequent customs procedure.
2. Article 214(1) and Article 215(1) UCC and Article 178(1)(b) and (c) UCC DR must be interpreted as:
   –  Not precluding the holder of an authorisation to carry on activities in a free zone from entering, in its records, the discharge of the free zone special customs procedure with respect to certain goods and, at that time, from confining itself to including information therein relating solely to a consignment note drawn up in accordance with the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, as amended by the Protocol of 5 July 1978, accompanying those goods on their exit from the free zone concerned, which indicates the customs status of those goods, certified by the stamp of the customs office and signed by a customs official, in so far as the customs authorities have authorised that method of discharge pursuant to Article 178(3)
   –  Not requiring that holder of an authorisation to carry on activities in a free zone to verify the accuracy of that indication.
3. The principle of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as meaning that the holder of an authorisation to carry on activities in a free zone may base such an expectation, that its records comply with Article 178(1)(b) and (c) UCC DR, on an established administrative practice of the customs authorities from which it is apparent, in a precise and unconditional manner, that the inclusion in those records solely of information relating to a consignment note drawn up in accordance with the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, as amended by the Protocol of 5 July 1978, accompanying the goods concerned on their exit from a free zone, carrying a written indication of customs status, certified by the stamp of the customs office and signed by a customs agent, is sufficient to comply with the obligations flowing from that provision.
4. EU law does not preclude the application of a national provision concerning the authority of res judicata which obliges a Member State court to annul a customs debt owed by the holder of an authorisation to carry on activities in a free zone pursuant to Article 79 UCC on the ground that the court of that Member State with jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of an administrative penalty imposed on that holder of an authorisation to carry on activities in a free zone, for the same customs operations and for the same reasons as those which led to that debt, has found, in a judicial ruling that has become final, that the holder did not fail to fulfil the obligations falling on it under Union customs law.