European Court of Justice

Local Contact

17 Nov 2025
Subject Tax updates
Categories Tax

Overview:

ECJ ruling (Case C-500/24, Grupo Massimo Dutti SA) regarding the determination of the customs value in case of successive sales.

VAT – ECJ ruling in Case C-500/24 - (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Community Customs Code – Article 29 – Value of goods for customs purposes – Determination – Goods sold for export to the customs territory of the European Union – Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 – Article 147 – Successive sales)

The ECJ rules that:

  • Article 29 CCC, and Article 147 TCDW, must be interpreted as meaning that where goods were the subject of two sales prior to their introduction into the customs territory of the EU in order either to be placed under the customs warehousing procedure in that territory or to be released for free circulation, the first sale cannot be considered to have taken place for the export of those goods to the customs territory of the EU if, at the time of that first sale, it was established only that those goods were intended to be introduced into that territory, and the place where those goods were ultimately to be marketed had not yet been determined.

ECJ ruling (Case C-348/24, Compañía de Distribución Integral Logista, SA) regarding the determination of the customs value and validity of proof of origin within the framework of preferential arrangements.

VAT – ECJ ruling in Case C-348/24 - (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Community Customs Code – Customs warehousing procedure – Release for free circulation – Article 29 – Value of goods for customs purposes – Goods sold for export to the customs territory of the European Union – Article 112(3) – Determination of the customs value – Article 214(1) – Relevant point in time for the purpose of determining the customs value – Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 – Article 97n(2) – Proof of origin of the goods – Article 118(1) and (3) – Period for submission of proofs of origin – Loss of the benefit of preferential treatment – Validity of documents proving the origin of the goods – Article 147 – Successive sales)

The ECJ rules that:

  1. Article 29(1) and Article 112(3) CCC, and Article 147 TCDW must be interpreted as meaning that where goods were the subject of a first sale which led to their introduction into the customs territory of the EU in order to be placed under the customs warehousing procedure and, subsequently, of a second sale on the basis of which they were released for free circulation in accordance with the simplified procedure laid down in Article 76(1)(c) CCC, the relevant point in time for the purpose of determining the customs value of those goods is that of their placement under that customs warehousing procedure, and the customs value of those goods may be determined on the basis of their transaction value at the time of the first sale.
  2. Article 97k(5), Article 97n(2) and Article 118(1) and (3) TCDW must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities of the importing country are not obliged to accept, for the purpose of applying tariff preferences to goods, a proof of origin which was submitted to them after the expiry of its period of validity, even though that proof of origin may have previously been submitted to those authorities before the expiry of its period of validity for the application of tariff preferences to other goods under the same quota.

ECJ ruling (Case C-659/24, A-GmbH & Co. KG) regarding the exemption of antidumping duties for companies importing less than 300 units of certain bicycle parts.

VAT – ECJ ruling in Case C-659/24 - (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Anti-dumping – Extended anti-dumping duty – Exemption of imports of certain bicycle parts originating in China – Exemption for the importation of small quantities by small-scale operators – Threshold of 300 units per type of essential bicycle parts declared for free circulation by a party or delivered to it)

The ECJ rules that:

  1. Article 14(c) Regulation No 88/97, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty provided for therein may be combined, in the same end-use authorisation, within the meaning of Article 254 UCC, with another exemption under Article 14(a) and/or (b) of Regulation No 88/97.
  2. Article 14(c) Regulation No 88/97, must be interpreted as meaning that the end-use authorisation, within the meaning of Article 254 UCC, may provide for an exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty for less than 300 units per type of essential bicycle parts per month for all of the customers of the holder of that authorisation.
  3. Article 14(c) Regulation No 88/97, must be interpreted as meaning that where the threshold of ‘less than 300 units per type of essential bicycle parts’ on a monthly basis is exceeded, a party which declares and delivers more than 299 units per month will not be entitled to any exemption from extended anti-dumping duties pursuant to that provision.

AG Opinion (Case C-307/22, A-GmbH & Co. KG) regarding the question whether printing templates made available free of charge by the buyer of goods should be included in the customs value

VAT – ECJ ruling in Case C-307/23 - (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Import and export procedures – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Determination of customs value – Costs associated with the templates of labels for tinned food)

The AG advises as follows:

  • Article 32(1)(a)(ii) and Article 32(1)(b)(iv) CCC must be interpreted as meaning that the costs associated with the production, in the customs territory of the EU, of printing templates for labels affixed to tins containing foodstuffs imported into the EU must be added to the relevant transaction value, where the buyer established in the customs territory of the EU makes the printing templates available free of charge in electronic form to suppliers in a third country.

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.